Effect of addition of amino acids to barley rations for rats and swine
by Richard M Davidson
A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE in Animal Science
Montana State University
© Copyright by Richard M Davidson (1962)
Abstract:
The trials reported herein were initiated to study the effect of adding amino acids to barley rations.
The results of Rat Trial I indicated average daily gains were slightly greater when feeding rations
containing a low protein barley when compared to rations containing a high protein barley. All rations
were corrected to 10 percent protein before the addition of amino acids. P.E.R. values were increased
when lysine was added to the rations containing either the high or the low protein barley. Supplemental
methionine appeared to have little effect on P.E.R. values.
When rats were fed rations containing 17.0 percent protein barley (rations corrected to 15.9 percent
protein) added lysine increased the P.E.R. value. Lysine and methionine added together gave slightly
greater P.E.R. values than when lysine alone was added. Little response was observed when adding
only methionine.
Seventeen percent protein barley rations (rations corrected to 15.9 percent) with lysine added at the 0.4
or 0.6 percent levels and methionine added at the 0.3, 0.4, 0.5 and 0.6 percent levels, all resulted in
similar P.E.R. values. All rations compared favorably with rations containing casein as the sole source
of protein in gains.
The results of Swine Experiment I indicated pigs fed L-lysine HCl gained slightly more than pigs fed
Lyamine. The addition of lysine to barley rations indicated trends for increased gains and feed
efficiency. Source or levels of lysine did not appear to affect the fat content of the carcass. Results,
however, indicated adding lysine to the barley rations increased the ribeye area and the loin weights of
the carcasses. Gilt carcasses contained a heavier ham, shoulder, loin, butt, lean trim and had a greater
ribeye area than barrows.
Results of Swine Experiment II indicated pigs fed rations containing a low protein barley (13.3 percent
protein) resulted in greater gains than pigs fed rations containing a high protein barley (17.0 percent
protein). The grower rations, using both barley sources, contained approximately 15.0 percent protein.
The fattening rations using the 13.3 percent protein barley contained approximately 12 percent protein
and those having the 17.0 percent protein barley had an approximate protein content of 15 percent.
The pigs fed the low protein rations (12.0 percent) had greater gains and increased feed efficiency in
the fattening phase when compared to the pigs receiving the greater protein rations (15.0 percent).
Average daily gain and feed efficiency were slightly greater when adding lysine, especially to the
rations containing the low protein barley. Results indicated supplementary lysine produced greater
effect on gain and feed efficiency in the growing phase than in the fattening period. EFFECT OF ADDITION OF AMINO ACIDS TO BARLEY
RATIONS FOR RATS AND SWINE
by
RICHARD M, DAVIDSON
A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in
Animal Science
Approved:
Head, Major Department
Chairman, Examining Comn^lttee
Dean
MONTANA STATE COLLEGE
Bozeman, Montana
June, 1962
-iiiACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation to Dr. L. G.
Young for assistance and council throughout the graduate program and
especially for helpful suggestions while conducting the experimental work
and preparation of the manuscript; to Dr. 0. 0. Thomas for suggestions and
assistance throughout the graduate program; to Dr. D. W. Blackmore for
helpful suggestions in the preparation of the manuscript; to Dr. E. P.
Smith for assistance in the statistical analyses of the data and to
Professor j. R, Dynes for assistance with the carcass work.
Appreciation is also extended to all members of the staff and
employees of the Animal Industry and Range Management Department for their
cooperation and assistance throughout the graduate program.
Special
thanks, also, to Mr. Donald R. McGarl, the swine herdsman, for his coopera­
tion while conducting the experimental work.
Appreciation is also expressed to Merck and Company who contributed
to the support of the trials and who furnished the lysine.
-ivTABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
V I T A ........................ ............. . . .............. .. . . .
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................... . . ...............-.........iii
INDEX TO'TABLES
............................................
INDEX TO APPENDIX
. . . . . . . . . . . .
....................
vii
...
ABSTRACT ........................
ix
xi
INTRODUCTION....................
I
LITERATURE REVIEW
3
........................
MEASUREMENT OF PROTEINQUALITY
...
...........................
4
THE QUALITY OF PROTEIN IN CEREALS ..............................
7
THE EFFECT OF PROTEIN CONTENT ON THE BIOLOGICAL.VALUE
OF PROTEIN .......................................
8
EFFECT OF AMINO ACID IMBALANCES IN RATS AND SWINE . . . . . . . .
10
THE ESSENTIAL AMINOA C I D S ......................................... 12
SUPPLEMENTATION WITH NATURAL PROTEIN TO IMPROVE PROTEIN
Q U A L I T Y ..........................
12
SUPPLEMENTING WITH PURIFIED AMINO ACIDS .............. ..
13
UTILIZATION OF D AND L FORMS OF AMINO A C I D S ............ ..
17
TIME FACTOR .
18
...........
EFFECT OF LYSINE SUPPLEMENTATION ON CARCASS QUALITY . . . . . . .
19
RAT E X P E R I M E N T S ..........................21
EXPERIMENTAL ENVIRONMENT
..............
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Experimental animals . ..............................
General care of
21
21
thea n i m a l s ................................ 21
Basal r a t i o n ......................
21
-V-
........
22
........................
22
METHODS AND P R O C E D U R E S ...................... .. '..............
23
Lotting
........................................
Protein efficiency ratio (P.E.R,)
Rat Trial I
..............................................
Rat Trial II . . . . . .
Rat Trial III
23
..................................
24
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
. . . . .
..........
. ................
27
........................................... . .
27
Rat Trial II . .......... . .......................... . .
28
Rat Trial I I I .......... ..................................
29
Rat Trial I
SUMMARY RAT EXPERIMENTS.............................. .. . . . .
SWINE EXPERIMENTS ..... ........................... .................
EXPERIMENTAL ENVIRONMENT
.................. ....................
Experimental animals .................
Lotting
. . ............
. . . . .
Weighing . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Feeding and watering . . . .
METHODS AND PROCEDURES (SWINE)
Trial I
. . . . . . . . . .
......................
..............
........
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
..............
. .
........................
34
34
34
34
34
35
36
36
41
Trial II . . . . . . . o o .
47
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
.................... .
47
....................
49
. ..........................
49
Growing phase -- Swine Experiment I
Fattening phase —
32
Swine Experiment I
Summary of Swine Experiment I
Carcass data Swine Experiment I
. . . . . . .
............
52
-viGrowing phase -- Swine Experiment II ......................
54
Fattening phase -- Swine Experiment II ....................
56
Summary of Swine Experiment I I .........
58
SUMMARY SWINE EXPERIMENTS ..................
. . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX . ..........................................
61
64
LITERATURE C I T E D ..................................................... 100
I
-viiINDEX TO TABLES
Table
Page
I. Rat Trial I.
II.
Rat Trial I.
Composition of the R a t i o n s ....................... 23
Experimental T r e a t m e n t s ......................
24
III.
Rat Trial II.
Composition of the R a t i o n s ..................... 25
IV.
Rat Trial II.
Experimental Treatments.........................25
V.
Rat Trial III.
Composition of Rations ......................... 26
VI.
Rat Trial III,
Experimental T r e a t m e n t s ....................... 26
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
XVI.
XVII.
Results of Rat Experiment I
...................................27
Results of Rat Experiment I I ...................................29
Results
of Rat Experiment I I I .................................30
Swine Experiment I. Specifications of Rations for Growing
Swine Utilizing Barley and Lysine .......... . . . . . . . .
37
Swine Experiment I. Chemical Analysis of Growing Ration
Utilizing Barley Plus Lysine or L y a m i n e ...................... 38
Swine Experiment I. Specifications of Rations for Fattening
Swine Utilizing Barley, Lysine andLyamine ...................
39
Swine Experiment I. Chemical Analysis of Finishing Ration
Utilizing Barley Plus Lysineor Lyamine .....................
40
Swine Experiment II. Specifications for Rations for Growing
and Fattening Swine Utilizing 17 Percent Protein Barley and
L y a m i n e ........................... .. ..................... 43
Swine Experiment II. Specifications for Rations for Growing
and Fattening Swine Utilizing 13.3 Percent Protein Barley
and Lyamine ....................................
44
Swine Experiment II. Chemical Analysis of Rations for Growing
and Fattening Swine Utilizing 13.3 Percent Protein Barley and
Lyamine . . . . . . . . ....................................
45
Swine Experiment II. Chemical Analysis of Rations for Growing
and Fattening Swine Utilizing 17.0 Percent Protein Barley and
L y a m i n e ...................................................... 45
-viiiTable
XVIII.
Page
Swine Experiment II.
of Barley Samples
Physical and Chemical Composition
XIX.. Swine Experiment I. Summary of the Growing Phase of an
Experiment to Evaluate the Use of Lysine in a BarleySoybean Ration for Swine . . . . . ..........................
XX.
XXI.
XXII,
XXIII.
XXIV.
XXV,
46
48
Swine Experiment I. Summary of the Fattening Phase of an
Experiment to Evaluate the Use of Lysine in a BarleySoybean Ration for Swine
..............................50
Swine Experiment I. Summary of an Experiment to Evaluate
the Use of Lysine in a Barley-Soybean Ration for Growing
and Fattening Swine ..................
51
Swine Experiment I. Summary of the Carcass Data From an
Experiment to Evaluate Lysine in a Barley Ration for Swine . . 53
Swine Experiment II. Summary of Growing. Phase, of an
Experiment to Evaluate the Use of Lyamine in a Barley,
Bar ley-Soybean Ration for Swine
.......... ..
55
Swine Experiment II. Summary of the Fattening Phase of
an Experiment to Evaluate the Use of Lyamine in a BarleySoybean Ration for Swine .=.........
57
Swine Experiment II. Summary of an Experiment to Evaluate
the Use of Lyamine in a Barley, Barley-Soybean Ration for
Growing and Fattening Swine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
59
-ixINDEX TO APPENDIX
Appendix
Tables
Page
I. RAT EXPERIMENT I.
INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE D A T A ................ 65
II. RAT EXPERIMENT II.
III.
INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE D A T A ..............68
RAT EXPERIMENT III. INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE DATA ............
70
IV.
SWINE EXPERIMENT I.
INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE DATA—
GROWING PHASE ............................ 73
V.
SWINE EXPERIMENT I.
INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE DATA—
FATTENING PHASE ........................
76
VI.
SWINE EXPERIMENT I.
INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE DATA— SUMMARY. . . 79
VII.
SWINE EXPERIMENT I.
INDIVIDUAL CARCASS DATA .................. 82
VIII.
SWINE EXPERIMENT II.
INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE DATA—
GROWING PHASE ........................ 86
IX.
SWINE EXPERIMENT II.
INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE DATA—
FINISHING PHASE
...................... 88
X.
SWINE EXPERIMENT II,
INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE DATA- -SUMMARY . . 90
XI.
XII.
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF P.E.R.
RAT TRIAL I
. . .............. 92
COMPARISON OF RATIONS AS SHOWN BY DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE RANGE
TEST. RATTRIAL I. . . . . . . . . . . . .
.................... 92
XIII.
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF P.E.R.
RAT TRIAL II . . .
XIV.
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF P.E.R.
RAT TRIAL I I I ................93
XV.
XVI.
XVII.
XVIII.
SWINE TRIAL I.
............ 92
GROWING PHASE. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF
AVERAGE DAILY G A I N ........................... 93
COMPARISON OF AVERAGE DAILY GAIN AS SHOWN BY DUNCAN'S
MULTIPLE RANGE
TEST
......
SWINE TRIAL I.
93
FATTENING PHASE. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
OF AVERAGE DAILY GAIN .. . '................... 94
. SUMMARY SWINE TRIAL I.
DAILY G A I N ...........
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF AVERAGE
................................ 94
-xAppendix
Tables
XIX.
XX.
XXI.
XXII.
XXIII.
Page
SWINE EXPERIMENT I, ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF BACKFAT
PROBES. ( L I V E ) ........ ..................................... 94
SWINE EXPERIMENT I.
GRAVITY
SWINE EXPERIMENT I. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF BACKFAT
MEASUREMENT.
(CARCASS)
. . .
.................. .
95
SWINE EXPERIMENT I.
LENGTH .
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF CARCASS
...........................
95
SWINE
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF HAM WEIGHTS . . . 96
XXIV. SWINE
XXV.
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ,.OF SPECIFIC
.............. Z-'-. " . . . ............95
EXPERIMENT I.
EXPERIMENTI. ‘ANALYSIS
OF VARIANCE OF BACON WEIGHTS
. . 96
SWINE EXPERIMENT I.
WEIGHTS. . ........
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF SHOULDER
. . . . . .................. ..
XXVI.
SWINE
EXPERIMENT I.
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF LOIN WEIGHTS
. . 97
XXVII.
SWINE
EXPERIMENT I.
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF BUTT WEIGHTS
. . 97
XXVIII.
XXIX.
XXX.
XXXI.
XXXII.
XXXIII.
96
SWINE EXPERIMENT I. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF FAT TRIM
WEIGHTS. . ............
97
SWINE EXPERIMENT I. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF LEAN TRIM
WEIGHTS.................
98
SWINE EXPERIMENT I.
98
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF RIBEYE AREA . . .
GROWING PHASE SWINE EXPERIMENT II. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
OF AVERAGE DAILY GAINS .................'........... ..
98
FATTENING PHASE SWINE EXPERIMENT II. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
OF AVERAGE DAILY GAINS . . . . . . . . .......... . . . . . .
99
SUMMARY SWINE EXPERIMENT II.
AVERAGE DAILY GAINS
99
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF
”XiABSTRACT
The trials reported herein were initiated to. study the effect of add­
ing amino acids to barley rations.
The results of Rat Trial I indicated average daily gains were slightly
greater when feeding rations containing a low protein barley when compared
to rations containing a high protein barley. All rations were corrected to
10 percent protein before the addition of amino acids. P.E.R. values were
increased when lysine was added to the rations containing either the high
or the low protein barley. Supplemental methionine appeared to have little
effect on P.E.R. values.
When rats were fed rations containing 17.0 percent protein barley
(rations corrected to 15.9 percent protein) added lysine increased the
P.E.R. value. Lysine arid methionine added together gave slightly greater
P.E.R. values than when lysine alone was added. Little response was ob­
served when adding only methionine.
Seventeen percent protein barley rations (rations corrected to 15.9
percent) with lysine added at the 0.4 or 0.6 percent levels and methionine
added at the 0.3, 0.4, 0.5 and 0.6 percent levels, all resulted in similar
P.E.R. values. All rations compared favorably with rations containing
casein as the sole source of protein in gains.
The results of Swine Experiment I indicated pigs fed L-Iysine HCl
gained slightly more than pigs fed Lyamine. The addition of lysine to
barley rations indicated trends for increased gains and feed efficiency.
Source or levels of lysine did not appear to affect the fat content of the
carcass. Results, however, indicated adding lysine to the barley rations
increased the ribeye area and the loin weights of the carcasses. Gilt
carcasses contained a heavier ham, shoulder, loin, butt, lean trim and had
a greater ribeye area than barrows.
Results of Swine Experiment II indicated pigs fed rations containing
a low protein barley,(13.3 percent protein) resulted in greater gains than
pigs fed rations containing a high protein barley (17.0 percent protein).
The grower rations, using both barley sources, contained approximately
15.0 percent protein. The fattening rations, using the 13.3 percent protein
barley contained approximately 12 percent protein and those having the 17.0
percent protein barley had an approximate protein content of 15 percent.
The pigs fed the low protein rations (12.0 percent) had greater gains and
increased feed efficiency in the fattening phase when compared to the pigs
receiving the greater protein rations (15.0 percent). Average daily gain
and feed efficiency were slightly greater when adding lysine, especially to
the rations containing the low protein barley. Results indicated supple­
mentary lysine produced greater effect on gain and feed efficiency in the
growing phase than in the fattening period.
f
INTRODUCTION
Barley production is increasing in the United States and especially in
the western states.
To maintain a desirable market for this increase in
production the use of barley must also be expanded.
Barley is an excellent grain for swine feeding and produces pork of
high quality.
to 17 percent.
The protein content of barley varies from approximately 10
Barley supplies only slightly less total digestible
nutrients than corn.
In several experiments, pelleted barley, fed in
properly balanced rations, has produced nearly as rapid gains as corn.
Barley, however, is deficient in calcium, vitamin D and vitamin A.
Also, the protein of barley may be deficient in certain of the essential
amino acids.
In feeding swine efficient results cannot, therefore, be
realized unless protein supplements of good quality are fed in addition to
barley so sufficient amounts of these amino acids will be supplied.
Some
of the higher quality protein feeds that have been used to supplement
barley are fish meal, meat scrap, tankage and soybean.oil meal.
Today's nutritional and industrial technology makes possible the manu­
facturing of barley rations, formulated to. include those ingredients"which
have been found to be deficient in swine rations.
With improved methods of
obtaining pure amino acids the addition of certain limiting amino acids to
these formulated rations may have economic advantages.
Little research has been conducted to determine the effects of adding
amino acids to barley rations for swine.
Therefore, it appeared important
to conduct additional experimental work to determine the desirability of
adding amino acids to barley rations as a means of increasing rate of gain,
feed efficiency and carcass quality of swine.
v
-2-
Additional experimental work was conducted with rats to determine the
effect of adding amino acids to barley rations.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The nutritive importance of proteins and the dependence of animals on
plants for these substances were first pointed out by 6, J= Mulder around
1840 (Encyclopedia Americana, 1960).
A few years later Boussingault,
writing in the Economie Rurale (Encyclopedia Americana, 1960) said, "The
alimentary virtues of plants reside above all in the nitrogenous sub­
stances, and consequently their nutritive potency is proportional to the
quantity of nitrogen entering into their composition."
McCollum, as quoted by Mendel (1923, p. 121), remarked that the in­
vestigations carried out during the period between 1910 and 1920 on pro­
tein foods of plant origin "leave no room for doubt that all the amino
acids necessary for the nutrition of an animal are contained in the pro­
teins found in each of these foods.
Certain of these are, however, pre­
sent in such limited amounts as to restrict the extent to which the
remaining ones, which are more abundant, can be utilized."
Flodin (1953) states, "the quantity and quality of protein supplied
by the diet are of vital importance to health at every portion of the life
span.
Wherever total quantity or average quality of the protein consumed
fall significantly below accepted standards for good nutrition, the .signs
and symptoms of protein deficiency (hypoproteinosis) appear, involving
various" degrees of retardation or failure of tissue synthesis ="
The dis­
covery that many of the amino acids composing body proteins must be sup­
plied as such by food protein explains why different foods and rations of
the same protein content have different protein values in nutrition*
differ in protein quality.
They
It must be kept in mind that there are certain
qualitative differences as to the essential amino acids required by
-in­
different species and for different functions in the same species.
There
are also quantitative differences per unit of body weight or of growth
tissue formed.
These considerations mean that one cannot generalize from
one species to another or one function to another as to either qualitative
or quantitative requirements.
MEASUREMENT OF PROTEIN QUALITY
One of the most common methods of determining the quality of protein
utilizes the criterion adapted by Osborne and Mendell9 viz-the gain in
weight per gram, of protein' ingested or protein efficiency ratio (P.E.R.).
From theoretical consideration, the maximal utilization of absorbed protein
for the synthesis of body protein is the most valid expression of the
growth promoting quality of dietary protein, according to Barnes et al.
(1945) . They go on to state', "The establishment of the maximal ratio of
body weight gained to protein.consumed is the most useful of the methods
of measuring nutritive value of proteins for growth that do not involve
fecal and carcass nitrogen analysis, but it does not necessarily provide
wholly accurate indices of protein values."
Chapman et al,. (1959) have
standardized this procedure, by using rats of certain age, correcting
protein of diet to 10 percent, maintaining the trial for a four week per­
iod, and adjusting results to a constant value of 2.5 for casein.
Morrison and Campbell (i960) using this procedure found that female rats
tended to give maximal P.E.R, values at lower dietary protein levels than
did.males.
It was also found that differences between casein and a plant
protein mixture were greatest during the early stages of the experiment in
both sexes.
-5Hegsted (1947) found a very high correlation between weight gain and
protein efficiency.
He also found that protein efficiency is a function of
gain in weight rather than a characteristic of protein fed.
He concludes
thatj in studies on the"relative nutritive value of various proteins using
growing rats fed ad libitum, little additional information is gained by
taking into account the amount of protein eaten, i.e., the calculation of
protein efficiency.
McHenry et al„ (1961) employed the liver.-N method with rats to deter­
mine the nutritive, value ©£ a number of proteins. The Iiver-N method is
based on the fact that, for relatively small protein intakes, the values
of Iiver-N £(mg) per 100 g. initial body weightj varied linearly with the
amount of protein eaten, provided the nutritive value of the protein was
not better than that of casein.
When they used casein as the standard of
reference for a series of proteins there was good agreement between values
obtained by the Iiver-N and balance sheet methods for proteins with nutri­
tive values equal to or less than that of casein.
A method to determine protein quality with respect only to lysine ha's
been described by Carpenter (1960) employing the Sanger reaction with I
fluoro-2;4 dinitro benzene for the determination of the free 8^-amino groups
of lysine units in purified proteins.
Baliga et al. (1959) in using this
method in cottonseed meal found a relationship between the content of
lysine with the free Gramino groups and protein quality as determined in
rat protein repletion tests.
Mitchell (1924) used a method based upon nitrogen balance data'involv­
ing- direct determination of the amount of nitrogen- in the feces and in the
-6-
urine and indirect determinations of the fractions of the fecal nitrogen
and of the urinary nitrogen that were of dietary origin.
The biological
value of the protein is taken as the percentage of the absorbed nitrogen
(nitrogen intake minus fecal nitrogen of dietary origin) that is not
eliminated in the urine.
McLaughlan e£ al. (1959) based their determination on the content of
lysine and methionine or methionine and cystine and developed a simplified
chemical score.
Because the simplified chemical score method is relatively
rapid, yields reproducible results, and correlates with animal assays, it
was proposed as a rapid screening procedure for the evaluation of protein
in food, but was not intended to replace the rat bio-assay method.
Physico-chemical methods of amino-acid analysis.by isotope dilution
may also be employed (Foster 1945).
This procedure,which appears to be
the most accurate method how available for the determination of aminoacids in protein hydrolyzates, is limited only by the availability of the
equipment and the material.
There has been considerable use of biological methods employing micro­
organisms and specific enzyme systems for the routine estimation of all
the known amino acids.
The results of the microbiological assay may be affected by many fac­
tors such as oxygen (Bohonos et al., 1942), carbon dioxide (Lascelles et
al., 1954), sparing of amino acids by the addition of other amino acids or
compounds (McClure'et al., 1954), interactions with other amino acids
(Fildes 1953), and the relative proportions of various amino acids and other
compounds (Erickson et aJL , 1948) and (Sirny et al., 1951).
-7However, Stokes et a l . (1945) found that, in general the microbiologi­
cal values for purified and impure proteins are in reasonably good agree­
ment with those obtained by the more recent improved chemical methods.
Block and Mitchell (1947) indicated a higher degree of reproducibility than
was noted in the work conducted by Stokes.
The evaluation of bacteriological methods for the determination of
protein quality by comparisons with protein efficiency ratio (P.E.R.)
values determined by standardized rat growth assay was conducted by Rogers
et a l . (1959).
Results with enzyme hydrolyzates correlated poorly with
P.E.R. values, whereas with acid hydrolyzates, a good correlation was
obtained for cereal proteins.
Bayne et al. (1961) reports on evaluation of 130 samples of seven
different types of protein concentrates, which were evaluated by the Gross
Protein Value (G.P.V.) procedure as supplements to cereal protein for
chicks.
In addition Net Protein Utilization (N.P.U.), with the samples as
the sole source of protein for rats, was determined for a limited number.
Microbiological procedure correlated well with these methods.
THE QUALITY OF PROTEIN IN CEREALS
Maynard and Loosli (1956) states, "Cereal grains are deficient in
lysine."
Morrison (1956) also concludes "when fed as the only source of
protein, the grains all fall decidedly below such a food as milk in quality
of protein."
In fact, it has been concluded by Morrison and Campbell
(1960) that P.E.R. values for bread and flour diets were a direct function
of the lysine content of the protein.
McLaughlan and Morrison (1980)
found that for mixtures of foods in which cereal products contribute
-8 “
approximately half or more of the protein, the lysine content is a reli­
able guide to the nutritional value of the protein mixture.
Carroll and Krider (1956) states, "The proteins of all cereal grains
are deficient in certain essential amino acids.
For this reason protein
supplements must provide not only more protein but protein having a good
balance of the essential amino acids."
The results obtained by McElroy et al.'(1948) agreed with the estab­
lished fact that grain protein is lacking in quality for the promotion of
efficient growth in swine.
Morrison (1956), and the National Research Council Publications 648
and 659 (1959) show barley as deficient in some amino acids for swine and
rats, especially lysine.
THE EFFECT OF PROTEIN CONTENT ON THE BIOLOGICAL VALUE OF THE PROTEIN
Marked differences in the growth response of both rats and pigs attri­
butable to variation in the protein content of the grain was observed by
McElroy et a l . (1949).
Mitchell (1924) found biological values were
smaller at the higher protein content of corn.
Mitchell et al. (1952)
observed the proportion of tryptophan and of lysine in the total protein
of corn decreased with increasing content.of protein.
However, Miller
et al. (1950) found that amino acid content of corn varied directly with
protein content and there was no change in protein quality with increase
in the amount of protein within the range from 8.49 percent to 14.12
percent.
Esh et. a l , (1960) working with Bengal gram of different protein levels
found the P.E.R., with the high protein gram was slightly higher than with
D
Q
O
the low protein sample.
Sure (1957) observed that order of the rations, based on their protein
efficiency ratios, varied at different planes of protein intake.
For
example, at the 15 percent level of intake the P.E.R. of defatted soybean
flour and cottonseed meal are far superior to that of corn gluten meal,
whereas at 25 and 30 percent planes of intake, the P.E.R. of the corn glu­
ten meal is appreciably higher than that of either the soybean flour or
cottonseed meal.
Bressani e t a l . (1958) determined lysine requirements for rats at 4
percent increments from 8 to 24 percent and at 32 and 40 percent crude
protein.
The maximum lysine requirements expressed as a percentage of the
diet remained essentially constant in the protein range of 16 to 40 percent.
Expressed as a percentage of the total protein, the lysine requirements
were 6.7, 5.6, 4.2, 3.6, 2.6 and 2.2 percent with 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 32
I1Snd 40 percent of total protein (N X 6.25) respectively.
Graw (1948) found that, as the protein level was increased, the lysine
requirement for maximum growth at a particular protein level increased.
In a somewhat different approach Bruneger et, al. (1950a) found that a
ration containing 10.6 percent protein, the lysine requirement was 0.6 per­
cent of the ration.
When rations were fed containing approximately 22 per­
cent protein, the lysine requirement increased to 1.2 percent of the
ration.
The difference in these requirements is largely eliminated if they
are expressed in terms of their proportion to the protein in the ration.
The lysine requirements of 0.6 percent and 1.2 percent of the ration cor­
respond to 5..7 and 5.5 percent of the protein in the 10.6 and 22 percent
-10protein rations respectively.
Almquist (1952) also indicated the amino acid requirements increase
as the protein level in the diet increases. However, amino acid require­
ments expressed as a percentage of the dietary protein appeared to
decrease as the protein level increased.
However, Graw and Kamei (1950)
found that, as the protein level of the chickens' diet is increased, the
lysine and methionine plus cystine requirements also increase, but at a
slower rate.
EFFECT OF AMINO ACIB IMBALANCES IN RATS AND SWINE
Working with amino acid imbalances in rats Sauberlich (1952) found
that such imbalances resulted in depressed growth.
It was found that this
condition could be corrected by the addition of the deficient amino acid or
acids to the diet.
Harris et al. (1943) found that a deficiency of lysine in a diet pro-
'
I
' '
duced cessation of growth and hypoproteinaemia in young rats, The changes
observed were assumed to be due to general inhibition of protein formation.
This resulted in a !reduced growth of some organs which developed at the
expense of others and protein was transferred according to a fixed system
of growth priorites.
Gillespie et al. (1945) found a loss of protein from the liver and a
hypoproteinaemia, while the body protein content seemed to be unchanged.
The importance of the liver for protein metabolism and its possible role in
connection with the synthesis of serum proteins was postulated.
Conducting experimental work with baby pigs Mertz et al. (1949) showed
that lysine is indispensable for growth and development.
Lack of lysine
-11resulted in cessation of growth, decreased feed consumption and decreased
feed efficiency.
Lysine deficient pigs manifested a depraved appetite,
rough hair coat, emaciated look and inanition.
The findings of Elvehjem (1956) show that excess quantities of amino
acids also affect growth.
He found that the addition of 0.4 percent of
methionine to an 18 percent casein diet caused growth depression.
He also
found an amino acid-vitamin relationship in which pyridoxine will counteract
the effect of moderate excess amounts of methionine.
Hanks ejt al. (1949) found the addition of 0.2 percent DL-methionine
in place of 0,2 percent L-cystine in a 9 percent casein ration for rats
gave the same growth effect as 0.2 percent L-cystine in the presence of
either 0.078 percent BL-threonine or 2 percent acid hydrolyzed casein.
They postulated that the growth inhibitions obtained by adding the various
combinations of amino acids appeared to be due to the increased require­
ments of the limiting amino acid when all others were supplied in adequate
or generous amounts.
By raising the levels of certain essential amino acids in diets con­
taining marginal levels of trypotophan Henderson at al. (1953) induced a
niacin deficiency in rats.
It was found that levels of lysine above ap­
proximately 0.5 percent and valine above 0.7 percent caused a growth sup­
pression which was corrected by an addition of niacin.
A relationship between methionine and vitamin
et a l . (1952).
was found by BeBey
They found that levels of methionine only slightly above
those necessary for growth depressed the growth of rats fed limited amounts
of vitamin B
Vitamin B^ counteracted the effect of moderate by excess !
-12amounts of methionine although, when the diet contained 3.5 percent of
methionine, high levels of the vitamin failed to restore growth.
Rose (1937) emphasized that in determining amino acid imbalances many
factors such as proportion of fat and carbohydrates in the ration must be
taken into consideration and that the age, weight and sex of the animals
may play important roles in determining the minimum level of a given com­
ponent .
THE ESSENTIAL AMINO ACIDS
Classifying the essential amino acids for the pig Mertz et al. (1952)
found that arginine, histidine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine,
phenylalanine, threonine, tryptophan and valine must be present in the
diet.
Beeson (1951) states, "If any one of the essential amino acids is
dropped out of the ration the growth of the pig will stop immediately."
SUPPLEMENTATION WITH NATURAL PROTEIN TO IMPROVE PROTEIN QUALITY
Hoagland and Snider (1927) conducted experiments to determine the
value of beef protein as a supplement to the proteins in certain vegetable
products. These tests showed that the rations containing equal parts of
beef and cereal proteins were practically of the same value im promoting
growth in rats as rations containing only meat protein.
Animal proteins have also been used effectively to supplement chicken
rations, Almquist et al. (1935).
Carpenter et al. (1957) used dehydrated fish products as supplement- .
ary proteins to cereals.
They found that addition of lysine to a commer­
cial fish meal raised its value.
-13 Morrison (1956) recommends that cereal grains be supplemented with
good quality protein such as fish meal, meat scrap, tankage or peanut oil
meal.
Gupta et al. (1958) found a considerable difference in values for
biological availability of the lysine in different purified protein.
SUPPLEMENTING WITH PURIFIED AMINO ACIDS
A
Rama Rao et al. (1960) found that rats grew normally when fed a com­
plete L -amino acid diet containing all the amino acids at their minimal
requirement levels in a 10 percent conventional protein (N X 6.25) ration.
Findings of Bressani et al_. (1960) showed that when a cereal diet was
supplemented with all of. the limiting amino acids according to the pattern
of the F.A.O. reference protein, a sustained nitrogen retention sometimes
similar to that obtained with milk feeding was observed.
Rosenberg and Rohdenberg (1952) obtained significant growth responses
in weanling rats with the addition of increasing amounts of lysine to diets
of dried bread supplemented with fat, salt and vitamins.
They found a,
supplement of 0.5 percent DL-Iysine HCl, corresponding to a 0.2 percent Llysine, to a bread diet improved the average gain in weight after 5 weeks
from 32 percent to about 75 percent of the average gain on the stock diet.
If sufficient lysine were added to bring the total L-Iysine content of the
diet to about 0.8 percent, or more, a growth response similar to that ob­
tained with the stock diet was observed.
Brunegar et al.. (1949) fed experimental diets containing 0.34 percent,
0.42 percent, 0.50 percent, 0.58 percent and 0.74 percent pure L-lysine.
The first four levels of lysine were fed to 3 pigs each and the 0.74 level
-14was fed to 2 pigs„ The pigs weighed 10 Kg. each.
The. averages of the
grams weight, gain per gram of protein consumed were 2.60, 2.85, 3.12, 3.47
and 3.49 for each of the respective lysine levels. The average biological
values for the corresponding lysine levels were:
52, 51, 61, 73 and 72.
Another experiment was conducted by Brunegar et al. (1960) using a
basal diet of corn and barley.
The diet, consisting of 21.1 percent pro­
tein, contained 0.57 percent lysine, and was supplemented with histidine
and methionine.
This diet was fed to weanling pigs for four weeks.
Exper­
imental diets were made to contain 0.57, 0.75, 0.97, 1.07, 1.32 and 1.63
percent pure lysine.
Each increased lysine level up to 1.07 percent im­
proved the growth rate and feed efficiency.
In another trial rations
containing 21.3 percent protein were supplemented with methionine, histi­
dine and tryptophan.
Lysine levels of 0.96, 1.00, 1.20 and.1.40 percent
were each fed to five pigs.
Increases in growth rate and feed efficiency
were noted up to the 1.20 percent lysine level.
The data of these two
experiments show that with diets containing approximately 22 percent pro­
tein weanling pigs require approximately 1.20 percent L-Iysine in the
ration.
Lyman et al, (1956) found the lysine requirements of the young
pig to be 3.45-3.65 percent of the crude protein by microbiological assay.
An experiment supplementing Teff with 0.4 percent lysine monohydro­
chloride (LMH) was conducted by Jansen et_ al. (1957).
Their findings
indicated that adding LMH to Teff raised the 4 week weight gain and P.E.R.
from 50.3 grams and 1.95 to 125 grams and 3.27 respectively.
Similarly,
supplementation of pear millet with 0.50 percent of LMH increased weight
gain and P.E.R. from 3.62 grams and 1.83 to 118 grams and 3.28,
-15respect ive Iy „
Hale and Lyman (1961) added O „62 percent lysine to sorghum graincottonseed meal rations for growing-fattening pigs.
Their results showed
pigs in all groups receiving the ration containing added lysine made
significantly greater (PtC O eQl) daily gain.
Their findings also showed
that lysine additions to the basal rations significantly improved feed
efficiency.
Pond et al. (1953) supplemented corn and milo rations with amino acids
for growing pigs.
They obtained a significant improvement in growth rate
and feed efficiency by adding lysine to the basal diet in one trial and the
improvement approached significance in another trial.
^ Larson et al. (1960) used lysine supplementation of oat rations for
weanling pigs.
Findings in the first trial showed the younger and smaller
pigs (20 lb.) responded to 0.3 percent supplemental lysine whereas for the
i
heavier pigs (28 lb.) the 0.1 percent level of lysine was most beneficial.
In both trials, the best rate of gain obtained on the lysine supplemented
rations was similar, to that obtained on the 10 percent soybean meal rations.
In the second trial, the lower level of lysine supplementation (0.1 percent)
seemed to be the most desirable.
"Y
Sure (1955) supplemented pearled barley with amino acids.
Supplement­
ing the protein in pearled .barley, fed at an 8 percent level of protein,
c
with 0.4 percent L-lysine, resulted in 57.2 percent increased growth and
50.0 percent increase in P.E.R.
The further addition of 0.5 percent D-L
threonine was followed by a 78.6 percent additional gain in body weight and
118.4 percent further increase in protein efficiency.
The supplementation
“■
16”
of pearled barley with L -lysine, D-L threonine and 0.5 percent D-L methion­
ine resulted in 15.3 percent additional growth and 56.3 percent increase in
protein utilization.
When supplementing barley rations with lysine Dinnuson et al. (1958)
'Kfound no difference in final feed conversion, however, large differences
were noted before the pigs reached 100 pounds. The addition of lysine, at
all levels studied and in all trials, gave beneficial results in average
daily gain.
Reisen et_ al. (1946) fed rats diets containing 8, 18 and 50 percent
casein.
They found the growth of rats receiving 8 percent casein was
increased with additional intake of methionine or cystine.
Their results
further showed that an increased intake of both methionine and cystine
resulted in retarded growth when rats received 8 or 50 percent casein, but
not with those receiving 18 percent casein.
When studying the effect of methionine supplementation of a soybean
oil meal-purified ration for growing pigs, fed at the 10 percent level of
protein. Bell et al. (1950) found that the protein from soybean oil meal
was less efficiently utilized by growing pigs and had significantly lower
biological value than whole egg protein.
The addition of methionine to
the soybean oil meal protein to equal the amount in the whole egg protein
made the two proteins equal,
Kade et_ al. (1948) found that better growth was obtained when using
an 8 percent casein diet supplemented with 1.5 percent D-L" methionine than
when using the basal diet without additional methionine.
Methionine added
at levels of 2, 2.5 and 3 percent of the diet definitely inhibited growth
-17-
and protein utilization.
Methionine or lysine was found to be the first limiting essential
amino acid in commercial mixed feeds for swine by Rosenberg (1957).
He
further found that successful supplementation of a feed consisted of adding
the first limiting essential amino acid to the feed in such a manner as to
achieve a balance with the second limiting essential amino acid as any
amount in excess of that needed for proper balance was lost.
Lewis (1962) conducted a feeding trial with pigs using high nitrogen
barley as the sole major constituent of the diet.
into four groups:
The pigs were divided
a control group receiving a typical standard ration,
a basal group given only barley, a basal barley group with the addition of
two amino acids and a basal barley group with the addition of 5 amino acids.
A batch of barley of 'lower total nitrogen (equivalent to about 11 percent
protein) was used for the finisher phase.
When the pigs were given the
ration of barley only, supplemented with amino acids and minor constitu­
ents, the performance was equivalent to that with a, good standard ration.
Assessment was made in terms of growth, feed conversion ratios, nitrogen
retention, and carcass composition.
UTILIZATION OF D AND L FORMS OF AMINO ACIDS
When supplementing with purified amino acids some factors must be
taken into consideration in relation to availability.
is the utilization of D and L forms of the amino acids.
One of these factors
Jackson and Block
(1953) found that D methionine, as well as the naturally occurring L
methionine, stimulated growth in rats ihgesting a cystine-methionine defi­
cient diet.
-is*
Berg (1936) found D lysine unable to promote growth when fed to rats
as a supplement in a lysine deficient diet.
Van Pulsum et al. (1950) found
rats fed the L forms of the ten essential amino acids as components of a
D-L mixture constituting 22.4 percent of the diet grew less well than
control rats fed only, the L isomers at a dietary level of 11.2 percent
protein.
When allowance was made for the growth promoting capacities of
the D components of the D-L mixture, and only half as much D-L phenylalan­
ine, tryptophan, methionine, and arginine and an intermediate level of D-L
histidine were included, the resulting 18.6 percent of D-L amino acids
promoted as good growth as that attained on the L mixture.
retardation was traced to excess methionine.
The growth
Comparative tests showed
that the growth retardation produced by the natural L isomer of methionine
was greater than that produced by either the D-L or the D modification.
TIME FACTOR
Another consideration is the influence of time of ingestion of essen­
tial amino acids upon utilization in tissue synthesis. Cannon at al.
(1947) working on this problem found that for effective tissue synthesis
all essential amino acids must be available to the tissues practically
simultaneously; otherwise the first group absorbed is not stored long
v-
enough to enable its essential amino acids to combine with those of the
second group for the synthesis of complete tissue proteins.
This occurred
even when the two incomplete rations were offered at alternate hours over
a 14 hour period followed by the non-protein basal ration for the remainder
of the 24 hour period.
The two incomplete rations combined contained all
of the ten essential amino acids.
-19A report by Geiger (1947) supports the view that "incomplete" amino
acid mixtures are not stored in the body but are irreversibly further
metabolized.
It was shown that with delayed supplementation of the lacking
amino acids the missing tryptophan, methionine or lysine, when fed several
hours after, feeding the "incomplete" mixture did not promote growth.
Elman (1947) found the injection of tryptophan (and methionine) 6
hours after an injection of an incomplete mixture of amino acids, lacking
only tryptophan, failed to induce positive nitrogen balance, whereas the
injection of tryptophan (and methionine) simultaneously succeeded in doing
so.
He concluded that retention of nitrogen is facilitated when all of the
complete mixture of amino acids is present to the tissues at the same time.
Yang et_ al. (1961), however, found growth data and the biological
value obtained with the lysine supplement administered apart from the diet,
either immediately or 4, 8, 12 or 16 hours after the 4 -hour feeding period,
were not different from those observed with the lysine supplement incorpor­
ated in the diet.
EFFECT OF LYSINE SUPPLEMENTATION ON CARCASS QUALITY
Vipperman et al. (1961) found an increase of total, muscle mass with
lysine supplementation of swine rations.
The carcass specific gravity
increased reaching a maximum at the 0.9 percent lysine level.
The yield
of skinned ham, Boston butt, picnic, and trim loin increased, and the total
lean yield increased (P<0.01).
Seerley (1962) supplemented milo rations for weanling pigs with 0.1,
0.2, and 0.3 percent L-Iysine.
Slaughter data collected were average
backfat thickness, carcass length, loin eye area and percent lean cuts.
-
20
“
Results of slaughter data showed that carcasses may be improved by lysine
supplementation.
As the level of lysine increased backfat thickness de­
creased and the loin eye area and percent lean cuts increased.
Comparison
of carcasses from pigs fed rations without lysine and 0.3 percent lysine
were 1.64 vs. 1.46 inches backfat, 3.35 vs. 3.78 square inches loin eye,
and 50.24 vs. 52.84 percent lean cuts, respectively.
RAT EXPERIMENTS
EXPERIMENTAL ENVIRONMENT
Experimental animals
Both male and female rats were used in all studies and were approxi­
mately 21 days of age at the beginning of the trials.
Rats were housed in
the Animal Industry small animal research room in the Medical Science
Building.
This room was heated by a central heating system and, as a re­
sult, the temperature varied considerably.
were observed during the trials.
Variations as great as 20° F
The room was also inadequate in ventila­
tion, becoming very stuffy at times. No artificial light was provided at
any time during the trials except when someone was working in the room.
General- care of the animals
Rats were weighed and earmarked at the initiation of the trial so
each rat could be identified.
cages.
Rats were fed and watered in individual
Feed and water were supplied ad libitum.
The feeders were refilled
twice weekly and fresh water was provided as needed.
The feeders were
placed in crocks to minimize the spilling of feed and facilitated a reason­
ably accurate weigh back of feed.
The experimental period lasted 28 days.
The animals were weighed at weekly intervals.
Basal ration
. The basal ration consisted of 80 percent corn starch, 10 percent corn
oil, 5 percent non-nutritive cellulose, 4 percent U.S.P. #14 salt mix, and
I percent vitamin diet fortification mixture from Nutritional Biochemical
Corporation.
The barley was substituted for the corn starch in the various
trials to pbtain the desired protein content for the ration.
were not analyzed chemically.
'5
The rations
“
22
“
Lotting
The rats were allotted to the various treatments maintaining an equal
litter distribution.
A uniform sex ratio was also maintained throughout
the various treatments.
Protein efficiency ratio (P.E.R.)
P.E.R. values were calculated according to the method of Chapman et
al. (1959) by dividing the weight gained in grams by the grams of protein
consumed.
A correction factor was obtained by using the formula
______2.5_____ ,. The figure 2.5 is a determined constant P.E.R. of
P.E.R. for casein
reference standard casein. _!/ The denominator is the P.E.R. actually re­
ceived from reference standard casein diet for the trial being considered.
The P.E.R. values of all except the casein diet were multiplied by
the correction factor to convert each to a common basis for comparison
with the standard casein diet.
I/
A.N.R.C. Reference Casein.
Sheffield Chemical,
Norwich, N. Y.
-23METHODS AND PROCEDURES
Rat Trial' I
Trial I was conducted to determine the effect of supplementing rations
containing high and low protein barley (13.3 and 17,0 percent respectively),
with lysine and/or methionine.
The composition of the rations is shown in
Table I.
In this trial 6 rats (3 males and 3 females) were allotted to each
treatment. The lots with their respective treatment are shown in Table II.
Table I.
Rat Trial I.
Rations
Composition of the Rations.!/
I I/
II 3/
III 4/
'1
Ingredients
Casein
-™-
Barley
58,80%
75.20
---
Corn oil
10.00
10.00
10.00
Cellulose
5.00
5.00
5.00
Salt Mix #14
4.00
4.00
4.00
Vitamins
1.00
1.00
1.00
21.20
4.80
Corn starch
11.13%
68.87
I/ All rations corrected to 10 percent protein before the addition of
2/
3/
4/
amino acids. ..
17.0 percent protein barley.
13.3 percent protein barley.
Reference casein.
-24Table II.
Rat Trial I.
Experimental Treatments.
I/
Lot I
Ration I — ^
Lot 2
Ration II 3/
Lot 3
Ration I plus Lysine
Lot 4
Ration II plus Lysine 4/
Lot 5
Ration I plus Methionine 4/
Lot 6
Ration II plus Methionine 4/
Lot 7
Ration I plus Lysine and Methionine 4/
Lot 8
Ration II plus Lysine and Methionine hJ
Lot 9
Ration III
4/
I/ All rations corrected to 10 percent protein before addition of amino
2/
3/
4/
acids.
17.0 percent protein barley.
13.3 percent protein barley.
L-Iysine HCl and/or D-L Methionine,
Rat Trial LI
In Trial II the procedures outlined by Chapman et al, (1959) were
altered so the protein of the various rations were corrected to a 15.9 per
cent level.
As a result, the composition of the barley ration, with re­
spect to corn oil and cellulose, was altered somewhat to facilitate the
15.9 percent protein level.
Methionine, lysine or the combination of the
two were added to the basal rations.
The composition of the rations is
shown in Table III.
Six rats (3 males and 3 females) were used per treatment.
with their respective treatments are shown in Table IV.
The lots
-
Table III.
Rat Trial II0
25
-
Composition of the Ratioms.
Ration
I
ii
U
Ingredients
Casein
17.4%
---
Barley
---
93.0%
Corn oil
2.0
2.0
Cellulose
5.0
Salt mix #14
4.0
4.0
Vitamins
1.0
1.0
Corn starch
I/
I/
70.6
17.0 percent protein barley used in the ration.
Lot I
Ration I
Lot 2
Ration II I/
Lot 3
Ration II
Lot 4
Ration II plus 0.52 percent L-Iysine HCl
Lot 5
Ration II plus 0,44 percent D-L Methionine and 0.52
percent L-Iysine HGl
plus 0.44 percent D-L Methionine
17.0 percent protein barley used in the ration.
Rat Trial III
In Trial III a regimen was devised to approach the problem of finding
the optimum levels of lysine and methionine which should be added to a
17.0 percent protein barley ration.
Two supplemental levels of lysine
were used with 4 different levels of methionine added to. each lysine level.
“26 The rations in this trial were also corrected to 15.9 percent protein
rather than the 10 percent protein correction used by Chapman. The rations
are shown in Table V.
Six rats (3 males and 3 females) were allotted to each treatment. The
lots with their respective treatments are shown in Table VI.
Table V.
Rat Trial III.
Composition of Rations.
Ration
I
II I/
Ingredients
Barley
---
93.0%
Casein
17.4%
--
Corn oil
2.0
2.0
Cellulose
5.0
—-—
Salt mix #14
4.0
4.0
Vitamins
1.0
1.0
70.6
Corn starch
I/
17.0 percent protein barley
Table VI.
Rat Trial III.
0.4% Lysine
0,,6% Lysine
0.3%
Lot II
Lot VI
0.4
Lot III
Lot VII
0.5
Lot IV
Lot VIII
0.6
Lot V
Lot IX
Levels of Methionine
I/
Experimental Treatments.
All rations contain 17.0 percent protein barley.
Lot I fed the casein ration.
-
RESULTS
27
-
and discussion
Rat Trial I
The average daily gain, feed per gram gained, P.E.R. and corrected
P.E.R. are shown in Table VII.
analyzed statistically.
factor for the P.E.R.
The P.E.R. values were the only result
The casein ration was fed to obtain a correction
This was calculated by using the formula
2 . 5 _____. The correction factor obtained for this experiment
P.E.R. for casein
was 0.86. All rations were corrected to 10 percent protein before the
addition of the amino acids..
Table VII.
Results of Rat Experiment I.
I
II
III
IV
V
Corrected
P.E.R.
A «D cG *
Feed/
Cm. Gain
P.E.R.
Ration I I/
Grams
1.75
Grams
6.12
1.64
1.41
Ration II + Methionine
1.86
5.83
1.74
1.50
Ration I + Lysine 2/
2.56
4.58
2.24
1.91
Ration II + Lysine
2.56
4.55
2.21
1.90
Ration I + Methionine
1.58
6.32
1.59
, 1.37
Lot
VI
Ration II + Methionine
.1.70
5.70
1.78
1.53
VII
Ration I + Lysine and
Methionine
2.68
4.55
2.23
1.92
Ration II 4- Lysine and
Methionine
2.68
4.57
2.20
1.89
Reference Casein
3,32
3.49
2.92
VIII
IX
I/
I)
3/
17 percent protein barley.
13.3 percent protein barley.
L -lysine. HCl and D-L Methionine both added at 0.2 percent of the
ration.
=28“
There was a variation of approximately 8 grams between lots in average
initial weights when the rats were placed on experiment. All animals were
within 3 days of the same age.
The rats in lots receiving lysine supplementation definitely had
improved P.E.R.'s.
The addition of methionine had no appreciable effect.
The two sources of barley, containing 13.3 and 17.0 percent protein,
respectively, responded equally well with lysine and gave about equal P.E.R.
values when supplemented.
This is not in agreement with Mitchell (1924)
and Unpublished Data (Montana State College) where findings showed that
biological values were lower at higher protein contents of the feed.
The analysis of variance showed a highly significant difference
(P<C0.01) due to rations. When Duncan's New Multiple Range Test (Duncan,
1955) was applied to the results of this trial, a highly significant dif­
ference (P<Z0.01) was found between the rations containing lysine (Lot III,
IV, VII, VIII) and those not receiving supplemental lysine (Lot I, III, V,
and VI).
Rat- Trial II
The average daily gains, feed per gram gain, P.E.R. and corrected P.E.
R. are shown in Table VIII.
for statistical analysis.
Only the Protein Efficiency Ratios were used
The correction factor used in this trial was
1.26.
The rations in this trial contained 15.9 percent protein before the
addition of the purified amino acids.
There was a variation of 2 grams in average lot weights when the rats
were placed on experiment.
The rats were approximately the same age
-29(+ I day).
The addition of lysine increased the protein efficiency ratios, where­
as supplemental methionine gave results about equal to those of barley with
no amino acids added.
Methionine added with lysine gave results somewhat
greater in P.E.R. than those with lysine added alone.
These differences
were not statistically significant.
An analysis of variance, showed a significant difference (<CP.05) due
to sex.
Males, in this trial, utilized lysine additions more efficiently
than females.
Table VIII.
Lot
I
II
III
IV
V
I/
2/
Results of Rat Experiment II.
A v . Daily
Feed/
Gain
G m . Gain
Grams
Grams
Ration I — /
3.51
3.18
P.E.R.
Corrected
P.E.R, '
1.99
----
Ration II -[
3,06
4.24
1.49
1.89
Ration II + 0.44%
Methionine
3.01
4.31
1.47
1.85
Ration II +-0.52%
Lysine
3.45
3.77
1.68
2.12
Ration II + 0.44%
Methionine and 0.52%
Lysine
3.76
3.54
1:79
2.26
Reference casein.
17.0 percent protein barley.
Rat Trial III
The average daily gain. feed per gram of gain. P.E.R. and corrected
P.E.R. are shown in Table IX . The factor for correcting P.E.R. in this
trial was 1.20.
All rations contained 15.9 percent protein before the addition of the
amino acids.
-30Table IX.
Lot
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
H
Results of Rat Experiment III,
A v . Daily
Feed/
Gain
G m . Gain
Corrected
P.E.R.
P oE oRe
Ration I
4.17
3.09
2.09
Ration II + 0.4% Lysine
0.3% Methionine 27
4.00
3.47
1.85
2.22
Ration II + 0.4% Lysine
0.4% Methionine
3.98
3.46
1.83
2.20
Ration II + 0.4% Lysine
0.5% Methionine
4.15
3.46
1.87
2.24
Ration II + 0.4% Lysine
0.6% Methionine
3.82
3.46
1.84
2.21
Ration II + 0.6% Lysine
0.3% Methionine
4.16
3.37
1.90
2.28
Ration II + 0.6% Lysine
0.4% Methionine
3.87
3.48
1.86
2,23
Ration II 4- 0.6% Lysine
0.5% Methionine
4.06
3.48
1.83
2.20
Ration II + 0.6% Lysine
0.6% Methionine
3.76
3.55
1.79
2.15
If Reference casein,
2/
17.0 percent protein barley.
The P.E.R. values are similar for all levels of supplementation.
It
appears that all rations are adequate in quality of protein for all compare
quite favorably with casein for rat growth.
There does, however, seem to
be a trend with the 0.6% lysine level for P.E.R. values to progressively
decrease with increasing levels of methionine,
It would appear that the
increasing levels of methionine might have a toxic effect.
This would
agree with work conducted by Elvehjem (1956) in which he found that the
addition of 0.4 percent of methionine to an 18 percent casein diet caused
-31growth depression.
It would be interesting to repeat this trial having a
barley ration with no added amino acids to serve as a control.
An analysis of variance showed no significant differences for any of
the variables.
-
32
-
SUMMARY RAT EXPERIMENTS
Three feeding trials were conducted with rats using barley as the
sole source of protein in the ration.
The barley rations were compared to
a control ration using reference casein as the only source of protein.
Lysine, methionine or various combinations of the two were added to the
barley rations to study the subsequent effect on Protein Efficiency Ratio
(P.E.R.).
Experiment I was designed to study the effect of adding lysine,
methionine or both to rations containing either a high (17,0%) or low
(13.3%) protein barley.
All rations were correct to 10 percent protein
before the addition of the amino acids.
Lysine and methionine were added
at one level (0.2% of the ration),
Results indicated that low protein barley had slightly greater (not
significant) P.E.R. values when compared to the high protein barley.
When
lysine was added to the rations, the P.E.R. values for the two sources of
barley were very similar. The addition of lysine to rations containing
either the high or low protein barley resulted in greater P.E.R, values
(P<T),01),
Supplemental methionine appeared to have little effect on the
P.E.R. values.
Lysine and methionine added together resulted in approxi­
mately the same P.E.R. values as when lysine alone was added.
The barley ration fed to rats in Experiment II contained 17.0 percent
protein barley.
The rations in this experiment were corrected to 15.9
percent protein before the addition of lysine and methionine.
Lysine was
added at 0.52 percent and methionine at 0.44 percent of the ration.
Results of the experiment indicated P.E.R. values were greater when
-33lysine was added to the basal barley ration.
Supplemental methionine
appeared to have little effect on P.E.R. values, however, when lysine and
methionine were both added to a barley ration P.E.R. values were slightly
greater than with lysine added alone.
The small differences observed in
this experiment were not statistically significant.
In Experiment III, lysine was added to a ration containing 17.0 per­
cent protein barley at two levels, 0.4 and 0.6 percent of the ration.
To
the rations containing each of the two levels of Iysine9 four levels of
methionine were added, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5 and 0.6 percent of the ration respec­
tively.
The rations all contained 15.9 percent protein before the addition
of the amino acids.
The results of the experiment indicated little difference in P.E.R.
for any of the combinations of added lysine and methionine.
It would
appear the addition of all supplemental combinations resulted in rations
with biological values approaching the biological value of casein,
A slight trend was,observed for P.E.R. values to decrease with in­
creasing levels of methionine.
The analysis of variance showed no signi­
ficant differences for any of the variables.
SWINE EXPERIMENTS
EXPERIMENTAL ENVIRONMENT
Two trials were conducted with swine to determine the effects of
supplementing barley and barley soybean rations with lysine.
Trial I was
conducted during the summer of 1961 and Trial II the winter of 1961-62.
Experimental animals
Hamprace X Duroc X Yorkshire crossbred pigs from the Montana State
College herd were used in both experiments.
The pigs were weaned at approximately 7 weeks of age.
Previous to
weaning, the male pigs were castrated, All pigs received a creep ration
previous to weaning and were held on the ration until the initiation of
the experiment. The first experiment had antibiotics in the creep ration
but the second experiment did not.
All pigs were vaccinated against
erysipelas and treated with a piperazine compound to control worms.
Lotting
*
\
.
The lotting of pigs was accomplished by stratifying according to
weight within sex and allotting at random to one of eight treatments.
Weighing
Individual initial weights were obtained at the initiation of the
experiment in both trials. The- pigs in Trial I were not weighed at any
regular interval, except, when approaching 125 or 200 pounds, then were
weighed weekly,.
The pigs in Trial II were weighed at two week intervals
V
from the time of the initiation of the experiment, and after approaching
125 or 200 pounds, then they were weighed weekly.
The pigs were changed
to finisher rations when the lot averaged approximately 125 pounds, and
removed from the experiment when they individually weighed 200 pounds or
-
35
-
more . When the lot had only two pigs remaining, both pigs were removed
from the experiment when the heaviest pig reached 200 pounds. All weights
were obtained without shrinking,
Feeding and watering
The rations were fed in pelleted form in self feeders.
All excess
feed in the feeders was weighed back at the conclusion of the grower and
finisher phases of the experiment.
The grower ration was formulated with
13.3 percent protein Betzes barley, whereas the finisher ration contained
mill run barley.
Samples of feed were taken-periodically and these were
analyzed by the Montana Stat$ College Chemistry Department.
Water was provided in troughs, presenting some complications.
During
the heat of the summer, the pigs lay in the troughs and it was difficult
to keep water before them.
Pipes were welded from end to end in the
troughs and to help alleviate the problem.
In the winter trial, during
the extremely cold weather, the problem of freezing was quite pronounced.
To alleviate this problem, the pigs were watered several times during the
day to insure ample water supply.
“36METHODS AND PROCEDURES (SWINE)
Trial I
Trial I was initiated June 27,. 1961, using 64 pigs with 8 pigs per
lot (four barrows and four gilts). The grower ration, shown in Table X
-contained 81 percent barley and 10 percent soybean meal resulting in a
ration with a protein content of approximately 17 percent by chemical
analysis (Table XI).
The finisher ration (Table XII) contained no soybean
meal and had a protein content of approximately 13 percent by chemical
analysis.
Table XIII shows the chemical analysis of the.finisher ration.
Lysine, in both phases of the experiment, was provided from two
sources L-Iysine HCl and Lyamine.— ^
Both were added, at levels to provide
the same quantity of additional lysine.
Each source provided 3 levels of
additional lysine, 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3 percent of the ration.
Upon removal from the experiment, 3 barrows and 3 gilts from each
treatment were probed for backfat and then slaughtered.
It was not pos­
sible to slaughter all 8 pigs because I female from each lot was saved by
the college for breeding purposes. To maintain an equal number of each
sex, only the first 3 males reaching the desired weight were slaughtered*
Three backfat probes were taken on the live hog, one at the first rib,
one at the last rib and one between the 3rd and 4th vertebrae.
These
probes were made approximately one inch from the middle of the back.
The
average of the three probes was used for computations.
The slaughtering was conducted in the Montana State College Meats
I/
Lyamine is the trade name of a Merck produced product.
tains 20% lysine.
Lyamine con­
Table X.
Swine Experiment I.
Specifications of Rations for Growing Swine Utilizing Barley and
Lvsine„
187
MSG Formula No.
188
190
189
191
192
193
194
Pounds per ton
Ingredients;
Barley
Soybean meal
Salt
Rock Phos, Defl,
Limestone
Trace mineral
B vitamin — ^ .
vitamin — '
Vitamin A and D
Molasses
Antibiotics — '
1215.00
150.00
7.50
8.25
16.50
1.50
0,75
1.50
X
75.00
1.50
1215.00
150,00
7.50
8.25
16.50
1.50
L-Iysine HGl
Lyamine
Wheat mixed feed
0
0
22.50
1500.00
1.87
0
0,75
1.50
X
75.00
1,50
20.63
1500.00
1215.00
150.00
7.50
8,25
16.50.
1.50
0,75
1.50
1215.00
150.00
7,50
8.25
16.50
1.50
0.75
1.50
X
X
75.00
1.50
75.00
1.50
3.75
0
18.75
1500.00
5.62
0
16.88
1500.00
1215.00
150.00
7.50
8.25
16.50
1.50
0,75
1.50
X
75,00
1.50
0
0
22.50
1500.00
1215,00
150.00
7.50
8.25
16,50
1.50
0,75
.1.50
X
75.00
1.50
1215.00
150.00
7.50
8.25
16.50
1.50
0.75
1.50
X
75.00
1.50
1215,00
150.00
7.50
8.25
16.50
1.50
0.75
1.50
X
75.00
1.50
0
7.50
15.00
1500.00
0
15.00
7.50
1500.00
0
22.50
0
1500.00
i/ High zinc trace mineral,
_2/ 4000 mg. riboflavin; 8000 sag, pantothenic acid and 18,000 mg. niacin per lb.
3/ 6 mg. vitamin
Pgr lb.
4/ To provide 500 I„U. vitamin A and 60 I»U„ vitamin D per pound of complete feed.
5/ Add 20 grams per ton of antibiotic (Pro-strep). Potency of Pro-strep -- 10 grams per lb.
Size of pellets;
3/16 inch.
Table X I 0
Swine Experiment X 6
Chemical Analysis of Growing Ration Utilizing Barley Plus
Lysine or Lvamine0
Ether
Crude
Fiber
Ash
Moisture Protein Extract
Phosphorus
Calcium
Ration No0:
187
Basal
3.3
16,7
2,5
5.5
4,9
0,55
1.10
188
Basal + 0 ol% lysine I/
4.0
17,4
2.2
4,5
3.9
0,52
0.92
189
Basal + 0 , 2 % lysine — ^
3,8
17,0
2.3
5,1
3.9
0.52
1.00
190
Basal + O 03% lysine i/
3,5
17:2
2,1
3,4
4.4
. 0,52
0,92
191
Basal
3.4
17.2
2,1
5,0
4.1
0.54
1.00
192
Basal + 0,1% lysine — ^
2.2
17,3
2,2
5,0
4,1
0,52
0.79
193
Basal + O 02% lysine
7.3
17,3
2.3
5.4
4,2
0.53
1.00
194
Basal + 0,3% lysine — /
7.3
18.0
2.3
5,2
4.2
' 0.53
0.92
Ij From L-Iysine HCl0
2/
From Lyamine0
Table XII0
Swine Experiment I 0
Specifications of Rations for Fattening Swine Utilizing Barley,
Lysine and Lvamine.
197
MSC Formula No,
198
200
199
201
202
203
204
Pounds Per t:on
Ingredients;
Barley
Salt
Rock Phos. Defl,
Limestone
Trace mineral — '
B vitamin %J
B.,2 vitamin 5/
Vitamin A and D
Molasses
Antibiotics
1825.00
10.00
8.00
20,00
2.00
1.00
2.00
X
100.00
1.00
1825.00
10.00
8.00
20.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
X
100.00
1,00
1825.00
10.00
8.00
20,00
2.00
1.00
2.00
X
100.00
1.00
1825.00
10.00
8.00
20.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
X
100,00
1,00
1825.00
10.00
8.00
20.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
X
100.00
1.00
1825.00
10.00
8.00
20,00
2.00
1.00
L-Iysine HCl
Lyamine
Wheat mixed feed
0
0
30,00
1999.00
2.50
0
5.00
0
7.50
. 0
22.50
1999.00
0
0
30.00
1999.00
27.50
25.00
1999.00
1999.00
2.00
X
100.00
1.00
1825.00
10.00
8.00
20.00
2,00
1.00
2.00
X
100.00
1.00
1825,00
10,00
8.00
20.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
X
100.00
1.00
0
10.00
20.00
1999.00
0
20,00
10.00
1999.00
0
30.00
0
1999.00
JL/ High zinc trace mineral,
2/ 4000 mg, riboflavin; 8000 mg, pantothenic acid and 18,000 mg, niacin per lb,
3/ 6 mg, vitamin 1^2 Per lb,
4/ To provide 500 I.U 0 vitamin A and 60 I.U, vitamin D per pound of complete feed,
5/ Add 10 grams per ton of antibiotic (Pro-strep) , Potency of Pro-strep -- 10 grams per lb.
Size of pellets;
3/8 inch.
Table XIIL
Swine Experiment I.
Chemical Analysis of Finishing Ration Utilizing Barley Plus
Lysine or Lvamine„
Moisture
Protein
Ether
Extract
Ash
Crude
Fiber
Phosphorus
Calcium
Ration No.I
197
Basal
7.3
12.3
2.2
5.1
6.5
0.41
0.88
198
Basal + 0.1% lysine — ^
7.3
12.1
2.2
5.6
6.7
0.41
1.00
199
Basal + 0 . 2 % lysine
7.3
16.0
2.2
5.2
5.7
0.50
0.71
200
Basal + 0.3% lysine — ^
7.3
17.5
2.2
5.1
5.7
0.54
0.88
201
Basal
5.1
12.3
2.4
5.4
7.6
0.41
0.83
202
Basal + 0.1% lysine — ^
4.8
12.6
2.5
5.3
6.9
0.40
0.92
203
Basal + 0.2% lysine — ^
5.1
12.1
2.4
5.6
8.9
0.39
0.83
204
BasaL+ 0.3% lysine 2d
5.3
14.9
2.2
5.3
6.1
0.45
0.79
I/ ' From L-Iysine HCl„
2/ From Lyamine,
-41 Laboratory and followed the procedure of Cole (1951).
dressed packer style;
The pigs were
After, slaughter, the following data were collected
(following the procedure of Strong, 1951);
I) backfat thickness, 2) speci­
fic gravity of the carcass, 3) length of the carcass, 4) weight of each
wholesale cut and 5) ribeye tracings.
tained will follow;
A description of how each was ob­
I) Backfat thickness of the carcass was measured
opposite the first, rib, last rib, and between the 3rd.and 4th lumbar verte­
brae.
These values were averaged,to obtain the value used in the results.
2) The specific gravity was taken after the carcasses were completely cool­
ed (approximately 36 hours). The carcasses were immersed in water (approx­
imately 40° F) and readings obtained.
Each half of the carcass was immers­
ed, and an average for the two halves taken as the specific, gravity for the
whole carcass. 3) The length of the carcass was determined by measuring
from anterior edge of the first rib to the anterior edge of the aitch bone.
4) The carcass was cut into wholesale cuts.
and hams were skinned.
A three rib shoulder was used
5) Altering the procedure outlined by Strong, the
cut for the ribeye area was made between the IOth and Ilth ribs.
The
ribeyes were traced on acetate paper and the areas determined by a planimeter.
Three measurements were made of each ribeye, and if they were with­
in 0.03 of an inch, the three were averaged and used as the value for the
ribeye area.
If they were not within this tolerance, more measurements
were made until the desired accuracy was obtained.
Trial II
This trial was initiated December 15, 1961, and involved 40 pigs with
5 pigs per lot (2 barrows and 3 gilts) . Two different samples of Betzes
-42barley were used for this experiment, one having 17,0 percent protein
(Table XIV) and the other 13.3 percent protein (Table XV).
The rations
containing the 13.3 percent protein barley also contained soybean meal in
the growing phase but not in the fattening phase.
The rations containing
17.0 percent, protein barley did not have soybean meal in either the grow­
ing or fattening phase.
The grower rations using both barley sources
contained approximately 15 percent protein by chemical analysis.
The fat­
tening rations using the 13.3 percent protein barley contained approximate­
ly 12 percent protein (Table XVI) and those having the 17.0 percent protein
barley had an approximate protein content of 15 percent (Table XVII). An
analysis of the barley samples is shown in Table XVIII.
Lysine was supplemented at three levels to provide 0.05, 0.10 and
0.15 percent additional L-Iysihe for each of the barley samples.
This
added lysine was in the form of Lyamine„
Following renfoval from the experiment, each pig was probed for backfat.
No carcass data were obtained from this group of pigs.
Table XIV. Swine Experiment II. Specifications for Rations for Growing and Fattening Swine
_____________*_____ _______________ Utilizing 17 Percent Protein Bariev and Lvamitie.__________
222
223
224
220
221
225
226
219
MSC Formula No.
Growing
Fattening
Pounds oer ton
Ingredients:
Barley
Salt
Rock Phos. Defl.
Limestone
Trace mineral IV
B vitamin 2/
® 1 2 vitamin $
■'
Vitamin A and D
Molasses
Antibiotics 5/
1820
10
13
20
2
2
2
X
100
2 -
1820
10
13
20
2
2
2
X
100
2
1820
10
13
20
2
2
2
X
100
2
1820
10
13
20
2
2
2
X
100
2
1820
10
13
20
2
2
2
X
100
2
1820
10
13
20
2
2
2
X
100
2
1820
10
13
20
2
2
2
X
100
2
1820
10
13
20
2
2
2
X
100
2
Lyamine
Wheat mixed feed
0
30
2001
5
25
2001
10
20
2001
15
15
2001
0
30
2001
5
25
2001
10
20
2001
15
152001
!_/ High zinc trace mineral.
2/ 2000 mg. riboflavin; 4000 mg. pantothenic acid and 9000 mg. niacin per lb.
3/ 6 mg. vitamin
per lb.
4/ To provide 500.1.U. of vitamin A and 60 I.U. of vitamin D per pound of complete feed.
j>/ Add 20 grams per ton of antibiotic (Pro-strep). Potency of Pro-strep -- 10 grams per lb.
Size of pellets:
1/4 inch
Table XV. Swine Experiment II. Specifications for Rations for Growing and Fattening Swine
_________________________________Utilizing 13.3 Percent Protein Bariev and Lvamine.
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
MSC Formula No.
Growing
Fattening
Barley
S.B.O.M. (45%)
Salt
Rock Phos. Defl.
Limestone
Trace mineral -I
B vitamin 2/
B^g vitamin 2/
Vitamin A and D A/
Molasses
Antibiotics 2/
1610
210
10
12
20
2
2
2
X
100
2
1610
1610
210
210
10
10
12
12
20
20 .
2
2
2
2
2
2
X
X
100
100
2
2
1610
210
10
12
20
2
2
2
X
100
2
1820
1820
10
12
20
2
2
2
X
100
2
1820
-10
12
20
2
2
2
X
ioo
2
10
12
20
2
2
2
X
100
2
1820
--10
12
20
2
2
2
X
100
2
Lyamine
Wheat mixed feed
0
30
2000
5
25
2000
10
20
2000
15
15
2000
0
30
2000
5
25
2000
10
20
2000
15
15
2000
I/ High zinc trace mineral.
,
2/ 2000 mg. riboflavin; 4000 mg. pantothenic acid and 9,000 mg. niacin per lb.
3/ 6 mg. vitamin
per lb.
4/ To provide 500 I.U. of vitamin A and 60 I.U. of vitamin D per pound of complete feed.
_5/ Add 20 grams per ton of antibiotic (Pro-strep), Potency of Pro-strep -- 10 grams per lb.
Size of pellets:
1/4 inch.
-VV-
Pounds per ton
Ingredients;
-45Table XVIo
________
Swine Experiment II. Chemical Analysis of Rations for Growing
and Fattening Swine Utilizing 13.3 Percent Protein Barley and
- Lvamine.______________________ ___________________________
Moisture
Protein
%
%
Growing Ration No.
211 Basal
8.1
15.8
212 Basal + 0.25% Lyamine
7.0
15.9
213 Basal + 0.50% Lyamine
7.3
15.1
214 Basal + 0.75% Lyamine
7.2 ■
15.1
7.3
12,1
216 Basal + 0.25% Lyamine
7.4
11.7
217 Basal + 0.50% Lyamine
7.4
11.6
218 Basal + 0.75% Lyamine
7.2
11.8
Finishing Ration No.
215 Basal
Table XVII.
Swine Experiment II. Chemical Analysis of Rations for Growing
and Fattening Swine Utilizing 17.0 Percent Protein Barley and
_____________ Lvamine.
_________ ;
______________ _________ •
__________ _
Protein
Moisture
%
%
Growing Ration No.
219 Basal
7.0
15.0
220 Basal + 0.25% Lyamine
7.2
15.1
221 Basal + 0.50% Lyamine
7:9
15.3
222 Basal + 0.75% Lyamine
7.2
•15.3
7.1
15.6
224-Basal + 0.25% Lyamine
7.2
15.3
225 Basal + 0.50% Lyamine
7.2
15.3
226 Basal + 0.75% Lyamine
7.0
15.4
Finishing Ration No.
223 Basal
-46
-
Table XVIII„
Swine Experiment II.
Physical and Chemical Composition of
Bariev Samples. I/
Protein
13.3%
17.0%
Test weight
50.0 lb.
44.0 lb.
Moisture
8.6%
8.0%
Skinned and broken
5.3%
3.0%
Broken
1.8%
0.0%
Plump
33.6%
-'21.2%
Thin
20.0%
42.8%
Dockage
00.0
00.0
Grain grade
#1 two rowed ■
barley
#3 two rowed
barley
Screen si%e - top
6/64
6/64
Screen size - through
5.5/64
5.5/64
I/
Information obtained from the Montana Sfate College Grain Laboratory.
•=
47
”
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Growing phase —
Swine Experiment I
All lots were on the growing ration for a period of 28 days.
results of this phase of the experiment are shown in Table XBC.
lysine appeared to have a slight effect on rate of gain.
The
Source of
Pigs fed L-Iysine
HGl tended to gain faster than the pigs fed Lyamine; however, little dif­
ference was observed in feed efficiency.
Supplemental L-Iysine HGl added
to the ration at the 0.2 and 0.3 percent levels appeared to increase
average daily gains and improve feed efficiency.
Supplemental Lyamine
seemed to be beneficial only at the 0.2 percent level. These differences
were not statistically significant.
Duncan's Mew Multiple Range Test applied to the results showed the
0.1 percent level of supplemented lysine decreased average daily gain
(P<[0.05) when compared to all other levels.
Results further showed a
highly significant difference (P<C0.01) between the 0.1 and 0.2 percent
supplemented levels.
The depressed average daily gain at the 0.1 percent
level (Lots 2 and 6) should, however, be discussed further before forming
any conclusions.
These lots had a greater standard deviation than the
other lots due to I pig in each lot with a depressed average daily gain.
All other pigs in the two lots appeared to compare favorably in gaining
ability with the pigs in the control groups.
One would suspect, as a
result, that the depressed gains observed with Lots 2 and 6 would be due to
chance rather than to the added lysine at the 0.1 percent level.
The initial weight 6f lots of all pigs were quite high at the start
of the experiment.
Furihef investigations seem necessary to determine the
Table XIX.
Lot
Swine Experiment I. Summary of the Growing Phase of an Experiment to Evaluate the
Use of Lysine in a Barley-Soybean Ration for'Swine.
_____ __________
Standard
Average
Average Average Days on Average
Feed
Feed
Feed
Daily Gn. Deviation Gons. Effic.
Init. W t . Final W t .
Gain
Ration
I.
187 Basal
70.2
126.5
56.0
28>
2.01
.20
152.5
2.71
2
188 Basal + 0.1%
Iys ine I/
72.1
124.3
52.3
28
1.87
.37
141.8
2.71
189 Basal +
lysine l)a
71.7
131.8
60.0
28
2.14
.18
161.1
2.69
190 Basal +
lysine |;3%
71.9
130.1
58.3
28
2.08
.18
149.4
2.56
5
191 Basal
69.0
124.5 .
55.0
28
1.98
.18
144.8
2.61
6
192 Basal +
lysine l/lt
69.5
119.9
50.4
28
. 1.80
.33
131.3
2.61
193 Basal + 0.2%
lysine 2/
73.5
131.2
57.7
28
2.06
.31
148.1
2.56
8 *" 194 Basal + 0.3%
lysine 2/
73.6
127.1
54.0
28
1.95
.13
144.1
2.64
3
4
7
I/
2/
From L-Iysine HGI.
From Lyamine.
-
49
-
respouse of pigs to supplemental lysine using pigs with a lighter initial
weight.
Fattening phase -- Swine Experiment I
The results of the fattening phase are shown in Table XX.
The pigs
fed L-Iysine HCl appeared to have a greater average daily gain and improved
feed efficiency when compared to the pigs fed Lyamine. The 0.2 and 0.3
percent levels of L-Iysine HCl supplementation both resulted in increased
average daily gains, whereas the 0.1 percent level was less than the con­
trols.
The depressed gain observed for the lot receiving the 0.1 percent
level of added L-Iysine HCl appeared to be the result of the poor perform­
ance of one pig in the lot.
It was interesting to note that the pigs in
the lot receiving the 0.1 percent level of Lyamine showed an increased gain
in the fattening phase of the experiment. The 0.3 percent level of Lyamine
resulted in the most favorable gain for that source of lysine.
These
differences were not significant statistically.
Ration 199 and 200 had a greater protein content than the other
rations as shown in the first chemical analysis (Table X ) . A second
chemical analysis was conducted and the results of this analysis resulted
in protein content values more in agreement with the other rations, though
still slightly greater.
This increased protein content may have had an
effect on the increased average daily gains observed for the pigs in these
two lots.
Summary of Swine Experiment I
The summary of Swine Experiment I (Table XXI) indicated feeding pigs
L-Iysine HCl may have a beneficial effect on average daily gain and feed
Table XX.
I
■
■■■„,
Lot
Swine Experiment I . Summary of the Fattening Phase of an Experiment to Evaluate the
Use of Lysine in a Barley-Soybean Ration for Swine.
____ ______________
Feed
Average
Average Average Av. Dayti
Average Standard
Feed
Gain
on Feed Daily G n . Deviation
Init. W t . Final W t .
Cons.
Ration
Effic.
197 Basal
126.5
204.9
78.4
35.0
2.24
.16
276.9
3.53
2
198 Basal + 0,1%
lysine I/
124.5
205.4
81.0
42.0
1.92
.42
300.4
3.71
199 Basal + 0.2%
lysine I/
131.7
208.2
76.5
33.2
2.30
.23
266.9
3.49
200 "Basal + 0,3%
lysine I/
130.1
208.6
78.5
34.1
2.30
.15
268.0
3.41
5
201 Basal
124.5
204.0
79.5
37.6
2.11
.36
302.7
3.81
6
202 Basal + 0,1%
lysine 2/
119.9
209.9
90.0
41.1
2.19
.30
329.1
3.66
203 Basal + 0.2%
lysine 2./
131.2
205.1
73.9
36.7
2.01
.23
300.0
4.06
2p4 Basal + 0.3%
lysine I/
127.1
206.9
79.7
35.9
2.22
.20
285.2
3.58
3
4
7
8
I/
2/
From L-Iysine HCl.
From Lyamine.
-50
I
Table XXI.
Lot
Swine Experiment I. Summary of an Experiment to Evaluate the Use of Lysine in a
Barley-Soybean Ration for Growing and Fattening Swine.
Ration
Average Average
Average
Final
(ft.
Gain
Init. (ft.
Ay. Days Average Standard
Average
Feed
on Feed Daily Gn. Deviation Feed Cons. Effic.
134.6
63.0
2.14
.10
429.4
3.19
205.4
133.2
70.0
1.90
.42
442.1
3.32
71.7
208.2
136.5
61.2
2.23
.20
428.0
3.14
Basal + 0 . 3 %
lysine U
71.9
208.6
136.7
62.1
2.20
.13
417.4
3.05
5
Basal
69.0
204.0
135.0
65.6
2.06
.26
447.5
3.31
6
Basal + 0.1%
lysine U
69.5
209.9
140.4
69.1
2.03
.28
460.4
3.28
Basal + 0.2%
lysine U
73.5
205.1
131.6
64.7
2.03
.25
448.1
3.40
Basal + 0.3%
lysine ZJ
72.6
206.9
134.2
63.9
2.10
.24
429.4
3.20
I
Basal
70.2
204.9
2
Basal + 0 . 1 %
lysine U
72.1
Basal + 0.2%
lysine I/
3
4
7
8
I/
2/
From L-Iysine HCl.
From Lyamine.
r
-52efficiency when compared to Lyamine. The 0.2 and 0.3 percent levels of Llysine HCl resulted in an increased average daily gain and feed efficiency.
The 0.1 percent level of L-Iysine HCl resulted in decreased gains when
compared to the controls.
This decrease in gain was partly attributed to
the poor performance of one pig in the lot.
Lyamine at the 0.3 percent
level of supplementation produced the most favorable results for that
source of lysine.
As a result of the increased gain, the 0.2 and 0.3 L-Iysine HCl
supplemental levels and 0.3 Lyamine level reached the desired weight in
fewer days than the controls and with a decrease in pounds of feed required
per pound of gain.
Carcass data Swine Experiment I
The summary of the carcass data is shown in Table XXIIl
Source of
lysine appeared to have little effect on fat content of the carcass. Live
backfat probes indicated a slight decrease in backfat thickness with sup­
plemental Lyamine, when compared to the pigs receiving added L-Iysine HCl.
This difference was not significant statistically..
Levels of added lysine did not produce any consistent trends when con­
sidering the fat content of the carcass.
It is of interest to note the
carcasses from the pigs receiving the 0.2 percent level of Lyamine had a
decreased backfat thickness, which was indicated by all fat measurements.
The pigs in Lot 3, however, having the same level of added lysine, produced,
carcasses with a considerable amount of fat.
The three methods of measuring fat content (live probe, carcass back­
fat measurement and specific gravity) employed in this trial all produced
Table XXII. Swine Experiment I. Summary of the Carcass Data From an Experiment to Evaluate
____________ Lysine in a Bariev Ration for Swine. I/________________
Lot Ration
I Basal
Average
Backfat
Probe
(live)
1.5
Average
Average
Specific Average
Backfat
Gravity Length
Thickness
of
of
Lean
(carcass) Carcass Carcass Ham Belly Shoulder Loin Butt Fat Trim
1.0408
20.53 6.58 36.83 8.75
1.6
30.7 23.91 16.56 14.22
Loin
Area
2.62
2 Basal + 0.17.
Lysine %J
1.5
1.5
1.0432
30.0
24.92 16.54
14.71
21.98 6.88 36.04 9.21
2.91
3 Basal + 0.27.
Lysine — '
1.6
1.7
1.0407
30.4
24.92 17.25
14,75
21.67 6.54 38.13 9.21
3.06
4 Basal + 0.37.
Lysine 2/
1.6
1.6
1.0406
30.5
24.33 17.74
14.49
21.93 7.02 36.31 8.60
2.98
5 Basal
1.5
1.6
1.0425
30.4
24.18 16.29
14.02
20.53 6.60 35.62 8.68
2.76
6 Basal + 0.17.
Lysine 2/
1.5
1.6
1.0416
30.7
24.57 17.07
14.77
22.13 7.04 37.38 9.38
3.14
7 Basal + 0.27.
Lysine 2/
1.4
1.4
1.0474
31.1
25.13 16.10
14.59
21.98 7.17 32.32 9.29
3.00
8 Basal + 0.37.
Lysine 2/
1.5
1.7
1.0400
30.0
23.77 17.00
14.28
20.92 6.97 37.01 8.67
2.82
A v , Male
1.7
1.0387
23.55 17.42
14.10
20.71 6.56 38.65 8.81
2.70
A v . Female
1.5
1.0458
25.34 16.22
14.85
22.20 7.14 29.55 9.14
3.08
I/
2/
3/
Data are the average of three gilts and three barrows from each lot,
From L-Iysine HCl.
From Lyamine.
-54similar results.
This would indicate live backfat probes might be used
with reasonable accuracy to predict the degree of fatness of swine to be
used for breeding purposes.
The length of the carcass did not appear to be Influenced by adding
lysine to the basal ration and was one of the two measurements not affected
by sex when analyzed statistically (the other measurement was live backfat
probes).
Results were very interesting when considering the effect of sex on
the various measurements.
Gilt carcasses produced a greater weight, highly
significant (P<f0.01), of ham, shoulder, loin, butt, lean trim and the area
of the ribeye was increased (P<1D.01).
In addition gilt carcasses contain­
ed less fat as shown by specific gravity values (P<jD.'dl) and by carcass
backfat measurements (P<^0.05).
Barrow carcasses contained heavier, bacons,
and more fat trim than gilts (P1C d eOl).
The two measurements, loin weight and ribeye area, were affected by
both L-Iysine HCl and Lyamine. The pigs receiving the 0.1 and 0.2 percent
levels of supplemental lysine had carcasses with larger ribeye area
(P<Cp.08).
Carcass loin weights were also greater from pigs receiving the
0.1 and 0.2 percent levels of supplemental lysine (P<^).09).
.
Growing phase —
.
•
•
-
Swine Experiment II
The results of the growing phase. Table XXIII, indicated a trend for
slightly greater gains with the rations containing the Ibw protein barley
(13.3% protein) when compared to the rations containing the high protein
barley (17.0% protein).
The rations containing the high protein barley
did not have the S.O.M. added, whereas the rations containing the low
Table XXIII„
Lot
Ration
Swine Experiment II. Summary of Growing Phase of an Experiment to Evaluate the
Use of Lyamine in a Barley. Barley-Soybean Ration for Swine.
Average
Average
Average . Days
Average
Average
Feed
Init. W t . Final W t .
Gain on Feed Daily Gn. Feed Cons. Eff.
I
211 Basal I/
63.6
125.8
62.2
35
1.78
212.0
3.41
2
212 Basal + 0.25%
Lyamine I/
58.2
123.8
65.6
35
1.87
198.0
3.02
213 Basal + 0,50%
Lyamine — ' _
59.4
124.8
65.4
35
1.87
214,0
3.27
214 Basal + 0.75%
•Lyamine JL/
63.0
129.8
66.8
35
1.91
204.8
3.07
5
219 Basal I/
63.0
123.4 .
60.4
35
1.73
202.0
3.34
6
220 Basal + 0.25%
Lyamine
63.4
126*2
62.8
35
1.79
210.8
3.36
221 Basal + 0.50%
Lyamine — /
59.0
121.2
62.2
35
1.78
200.0
3.22
222 Basal + 0.75%
Lyamine U
63.6
125.4
, 61.8
35
1.77
200.8
3.25
3
4
7
8
I/
2/
13.3 percent barley.
17.0 percent barley.
-56protein barley did. All rations contained approximately 15^3 percent
protein.
It would appear from the results of this experiment that pigs
fed'a ration containing high protein barley will do reasonably well without
high protein supplements added.
The differences observed in gains due to
source of protein were not significant.
The addition of Lyamine to the basal rations appeared to increase rate
of gain.
This increase was more pronounced when Lyamine was added to
rations containing the low protein barley, although the difference was very
slight and not significant.
Supplemental Lyamine at all levels improved feed efficiency when added
to the rations containing the low protein barley.
When Lyamine was added
to the rations containing the high protein barley the 0.50 and 0.75 percent
levels resulted in a slight improvement in feed efficiency.
Fattening phase -- Swine Experiment II
The results of the fattening phase are shown in Table XXIV.
The
rations containing the low protein barley (13.3% protein) had a protein
content of approximately 12 percent in this phase of the experiment.
The
protein content of the high protein barley rations (17.0% protein) was
approximately 15.5 percent.
rations in this phase.
Soybean oil meal was not added to any of the
Chemical analysis of the feed showed very little
variation in protein content among the rations within a particular barley
source.
The pigs receiving the low protein barley rations made greater gains
than the pigs fed the high protein barley rations.
highly significant (P<^0.01).
This difference was
Feed efficiency also appeared to be improved
Table XXIV.
Lot
Swine Experiment II. Summary of the Fattening Phase of an Experiment to Evaluate
the Use of Lyamine in a Barley“Soybean Ration for Swine.
Average Av. Days Average
Average
Average
Average
Feed
Init„ W t . Final W t .
Gain
on Feed Daily Gn, Feed Cons. Eff.
Ration
215 Basal ^
125.8
203.4
77.6
30.8
2.52
276.0
3.56
2
216 Basal + 0.25%
Lyamine U
123.8
205.2
81.4
33.6
2.42
282.2
3.47
217 Basal + 0.50%
Lyamine U
124.8
209.8
85.0
30.8
2.76
292.0
3.44
218 Basal + 0.75%
Lyamine I/
129.8
204.6
74.8
30.8
2.43
261.0
3.49
5
223 Basal I/
123.4
206.2
82.8
36.4
2.27
303.6
3.67
6
224 Basal + 0.25%
Lyamine I/
126.2
202.8
76.6
-33.6
2.28
287.6
3.75
225 Basal + 0.50%
Lyamine — '
121.2
208.0
86.8
39.2
2.21
307.0
3.54
226 Basal + 0.75%
Lyamine 2/
125.4
201.6
76.2
35.0
2.18
264.0
3.46
3
4
7
8
If 13.3 percent barley.
2/V 17 percent barley.
-57
I
-58when feeding the low protein barley rations when compared to the high
protein barley rations.
This difference was not analyzed statistically.
It was interesting to note that the pigs fed rations containing the
low protein barley made the greatest gains.
This might be due to the
higher fiber content of the high protein barley (lower test weight). There
is also a possibility that barley exhibits the same trends as corn
(Mitchell, 1924), resulting in a decreased biological value of the protein
with increases in protein content.
Rat work (unpublished data Montana
State College) conducted with a high and low protein barley source indicat­
ed P.E.R. values were greater for the low protein barley when all rations
were corrected to 10 percent protein.
It was also evident in this phase
of the experiment that barley rations will give very satisfactory gains
without supplemental protein.
Supplemental Lyamine did not seem to increase gains, except when the
0.5 percent level was added to the rations containing the low protein
barley.
A slight trend was indicated for improved feed efficiency with
the addition of Lyamine. These differences were not significant.
Summary of Swine Experiment II
The summary of the results of Swine Experiment II is shown in Table
XXV.
Pigs fed low protein barley rations (13;3% protein) had a greater
average daily gain (P<3.01) than pigs fed the high protein barley rations
(17.0% barley).
Pigs fed the 0.50 percent level of supplemental Lyamine added to the
low protein barley had slightly greater gains (not significant).
The gains
for pigs fed all other supplemental levels added to both sources of barley
Table XXV. Swine Experiment II. Summary of an Experiment to Evaluate the Use of Lyamine in a
____________Bariev, Barley-Soybean Ration for Growing, and Fattening Swine.
Feed
Average kv. Dys„ Average , Feed
Average Average
Backfat
on
Feed
Eff.
Init.
Wt.
Final
W
t
.
Gain
Daily
G
n
.
Ration
Cons.
Lot
Probe
I
Basal — /
63.6
203.4
129.8
65.8
2.12
488.0
3.49
1.61
2
Basal + 0.25%
Lyamine I/
58.2
205.2
147.0
68.6
2.14
480.2
3.27
1.66
Basal + 0.50%
Lyamine JL/
59.4
209.8
150.4
65.8
2.29
506.0
3.36
1.62
3
. "...
Basal + 0,75%
Lyamine V
63.0
204.6
141.6
65.8
2.15
465.8
3.29
1.61
5
Basal — /
63.0
206.2
143.2
71.4
2.01
505.6
3.53
1.73
6
Basal + Oi25%
Lyamine 2J
63.4
202.8
139.4
68.6
2.03
498.4
3.57
1.60
Basal + 0.50%
Lyamine U
59.0
207.8
148.8
74.2
2.01
507.0
3.41
1.62
Basal + 0.75%
Lyamine — /
63.6
201.6
138.0
70.0
1.97
464.8
3.37
1.58
4
7
8
I/
2/
13.3 percent protein barley.
17.0 percent protein barley.
Soybean oil meal in grower but not in finisher.
“
60
”
were similar.
Feed efficiency was improved when Lyamine was added to the rations
containing the low protein barley.
A slight improvement in feed efficiency
was also observed when adding Lyamine at the 0.50 and 0.75 percent levels
to the high protein barley rations.
As a result of greater gains, the pigs fed the low protein barley
reached the desired weight in fewer days than pigs fed the high protein
barley rations.
The backfat probes, taken when the pigs were removed from the experi­
ment appeared to be similar when comparing rations containing different
protein levels and also when comparing levels of supplemental Lyamine.
Results of the trial would indicate supplemental Lyamine produced
greater effect on gain and feed efficiency in the growing phase than in the
fattening period.
These results would indicate that continued work is
necessary starting the experimental work when the pigs were weaned.
Pro­
tein quality seems to.be most critical when the pigs are small.
When comparing the rat and.swine data rats utilize supplemental
lysine added to barley rations more efficiently than swine.
These rations
were not of the same protein content, so comparisons could be due to
this factor.
O
-61SUMMARY SWINE EXPERIMENTS
Two swine trials were conducted to determine the effects of supple­
menting barley and barley-soybean rations with lysine.
Hamprace X Duroc
X Yorkshire crossbred pigs were used in both experiments.
The pigs were
first placed on a growing ration, changed to a fattening ration when the
lot averaged approximately 125 pounds, and removed from the experiment when
they individually weighed 200 pounds or more.
Rations were supplemented
with vitamins and minerals and fed in a pelleted form.
Trial I used 64 pigs with 8 pigs per lot (four gilts and four barrows).
The grower ration contained 81 percent barley and 10 percent S.O.M.
protein content of the grower ration was approximately 17.0 percent.
The
The
finisher ration contained no S.O.M. and had a protein content of approxi­
mately 13.0 percent.
and Lyamine.
Lysine was provided from two sources, L-Iysine HCl
Each source provided 3 levels of additional lysine, 0.1, 0.2
and 0.3 percent of the ration.
In the growing phase of Trial I, pigs fed L-Iysine HCl tended to gain
faster than pigs fed Lyamine. This difference was not significant statist­
ically.
Supplemental L-Iysine HCl added to the ration at the 0.2 and 0.3
percent levels of the ration appeared to increase average daily gain of
pigs and improve feed efficiency.
The 0.1 level of supplemental lysine,
however, decreased average daily gain (P<T0.05), when compared to all other
levels.
Results showed a highly significant difference (P<C0.01) between
the 0.1 and 0.2 percent supplemental levels.
Pigs fed L-Iysine HCl, in the fattening phase of Trial I, appeared to
have greater average daily gains and improved feed efficiency when compared
-62"
to pigs fed Lyamine. The 0.1 and 0.3 percent levels of L-Iysine HCl
supplementation both resulted in greater average daily gains, whereas the
0.1 percent level was slightly less than the control.
The 0.3 percent.
Lyamine supplementation resulted in the most favorable gain for that source
of lysine.
These differences were not statistically significant.
When the results of the two phases were combined, L-Iysine HCl seemed
to have a beneficial effect on average daily gain and feed efficiency when
compared to Lyamine. The 0.2 and 0.3 percent levels of L-Iysine HCl re­
sulted in an increased average daily gain and feed efficiency.
Lyamine
added at the 0.3 percent level produced the most favorable results.
These
differences were not statistically significant.
Source of lysine or levels did not seem to affect the fat content of
the carcass.
The pigs receiving the 0.1 and 0.2 percent levels of supple­
mental lysine had carcasses with a larger ribeye area (P<C0.08) and loin
weights were heavier (P<^0.09) when compared to the control.
ference was observed in the other measurements.
Little dif­
Gilt carcasses produced
a greater weight (P<C0.01) of ham, shoulder, loin, butt, lean trim and the
area of the ribeye was greater.
In addition, gilt carcasses contained less
fat as shown by specific gravity values (P«<p.01) and by carcass backfat
measurement (P<^0.05). Barrow carcasses contained heavier bacons and more
fat trim than the gilts (P<%0.01).
Swine Trial II involved 40 pigs with 5 pigs per lot (2 barrows and 3
gilts). Two different samples of Betzes barley were used for this experiment, one having 13.3 percent protein and the other 17.d percent protein.
. .
■ I
•;
: Iv . :
The rations containing the 13.3 percent protein barley also contained S.O.M.
r
-63 in the growing phase but not in the fattening phase.
The grower rations
using both barley sources contained approximately 15.0 percent protein.
The
fattening rations using the 13.3 percent protein barley contained approxi­
mately 12.0 percent protein, and those having the 17.0 percent protein bar­
ley had approximately 15.5 percent protein.
Lyamine was supplemented at
three levels to provide 0.05, 0.10 and 0.15 percent additional L-Iysiiie.
Following removal from the experiment each pig was probed for backfat.
The results of the growing phase indicated a trend for slightly great­
er gains with the 13.3 percent protein barley.
Feed efficiency and average
daily gain appeared to increase with lyamine supplementation.
These
differences were not statistically significant.
In the fattening phase, a definite increase in gain and feed effici­
ency was observed for the rations containing 13.3 percent protein barley,
when compared with the rations containing the 17.0 percent protein barley.
This difference was highly significant statistically (P<p.oi),
When the results of the two phases were combined, the pigs fed the
:
rations containing the 13.3 percent protein barley had a greater average
daily gain (P<TD.01) than pigs fed the rations containing the 17.0 percent
protein barley.
The average daily gains and feed efficiency appeared to be
slightly improved by addition of lyamine, especially to the rations
containing the 13.3 percent protein barley.
The differences observed were
not significant statistically.
The backfat probes indicated a slight decrease in backfat thickness
with the higher protein ration.
Various levels of supplementation appeared
to have little effect on backfat thickness.
APPENDIX
-65 APPENDIX TABLE I.
Sex
Rat
No.
Initial
Weight
Grams
RAT EXPERIMENT I. ^
INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE DATA.
Average
Protein
Total Daily
Final
Con­
Corrected
Gain
Weight
Gain
sumed
P.E.R.
P.E.R.
Grams Grams
Grams
Grams
F
11
M
12
F
13
F
14
M
15
M
16
Average
57
41
45
47
56
39
47.5
108
82
92
101
111
85
96.5
Lot I.
51
40
47
54
55
46
49.0
Ration X lj
30.6
1.82
1.43
25.4
1.68
29.7
1.93
32.7
1.96
32.9
27.5
1.64
1.75
29.8
1.67
1.57
1.58
1.65
1.67
1.65
1.64
1.44
1.35
1.36
1.42
1.44
1.42
1.41
M
21
F
22
F
23
M
24
F
25
M
26
Average
57
48
44
40
39
32
41.8
112
104
97
77
90
84
94.0
Lot 2.
55
56
53
37
51
52
52.2
Ration II -I
1.96
31.9
2.00
31.2
1.89
33.7
1.32
23.9
1.82
29.3
26.2
1.86
1.86
29.4
1.72
1.79
1.57
1.55
1.74
1,99
1.74
1.48
1.54
1.35
1.33
1.50
1.71
1.50
M
31
F
32
M
33
M
34
F
35
F
36
Average
Lot 3. Ration I + 0.27, L-•Ivsine HCl
1.68
49
96
47
27.7
2.75
31.8
39
116
77
34.2
50
71
2.53
121
72
28.8
38
HO
2.57
2.75
33.3
35
112
77
3.10
36
87
37.7
123
32.2
113.0
71.5 2.56
41.5
1.70
2.42
2.08
2.50
2.31
2.31
2.22
1.46
2.08
1.79
2.15
1.99
1.99
1.91
F
41
M
42
F
43
F
44
M
45
M
46
Average
Lot 4. Ration II +
45
116
71
45
116
71
74
49
123
75
40
115
83
36
119
80
45
125
119.0
43.3
75.7
2.18
2.20
2.00
2.29
2.39
2.16
2.21
1.87
1.89
1.72
2.00
2.06
1.86
1.90
0.27, L-Ivsine HCl
. 32.5
2.54
32.3
2.54
37.0
2.64
32.8
2.68
34.8
2.96
37.0
2.86
34.4
2.70
-66APPENDIX TABLE I,
Sex
Rat
No.
M
51
F
52
F
53
M
54
F
55
M
56
Average
Initial
Weight
Grams
(CONTINUED)
Final
Weight
Grams
Total
Gain
Grams
Average
Daily
Gain
Grams
Protein
Con­
sumed
Grams
Lot 5. Ration I + 0.2% D-L Methionine
50
44
94
1.57
36.2
111
53
58
35.2
2.07
100
46
54
1.93
35.4
82
41
41
1.46
23.6
32
72
40
1.43
22.6
29
34
63
23.0
1.04
42.7
87.0
44.3 1,58
27.7
P.E.R.
Corrected
P.E.R.
1.68
1.64
1.53
1.74
1.77
1.26
1.59
1.44
1.41
1.32
1.50
1.52
1.08
1.37
i
Lot 6. Ration II 4- 0.2% D -L Methionine
M
45
24.5
52
1.61
1,84
61
97
F
62
78
44
25.8
34
1,57
1.71
F
33.8
63
106
57
2,04
1.69
49
M
38
80
24.6
1.54
64
. 42
1.35
F
65
46
25.4
1.81
35
81
1.64
56
2.01
M
40
96
2.00
27.9
66
42.0
27.0
1.78
47.7 1.70
Average
89.7
1.58
1.47
1.45
1.32
1.56
1.73
1.53
F
71
F
72
F
73
M
74
M
75
M
76
Average
Lot 7.
51
41
51
44
35
39
41.3
Ration I + 0.2% L-rlvsine HCl and 0.2% D tL Methionine
1.79
122
71
2,54
34,2
2.08
27.5
2.25
62
2,21
1.94
103
35.0
115
64
1.83
1.57
2.29
2.00
121
77
33.1
2.33
2.75
2.16
88
35.1
2.51
3.14
123
2.02
75 ' 2.68
31.9
2.35
114
1.92
32.8
2.23
116.3
72.8 2.68
F
81
M
82
M
83
F
84
F
85
M
86
Average
Lot 8.
49
32
49
39
34
35
39.7
Ration II + 0.2%
122
73
59
91
75
124
69
108
111
77
132
97
75.0
114.6
L-Ivsine HCl and 0.2% D-L Methionine
2.10
1.81
2.61
34.7
2.15
1.85
2.11
27.4
1.75
36.7
2.04
2.68
33.2
1.79
2.46
2.08
2.02
2.75
32.8
2.35
2.46
2.12
39.5
3.46
2.20
1.89
34.1
2.68
-67“
APPENDIX TABLE I.
Sex
Rat
No.
F
91
F
92
F
93
M
94
M
95
M
96
Average
I/
(CONTINUED)
Initial
Weight
Grams
Final
Weight
.Grams
40
48
47
39
36
30
40.0
126
135
128
118
156
135
133.0
Total
Gain
Grams
Lot 9.
86
87
81
79
120
105
90.0
Average
Daily
Gain
Grams
Protein
Con- sumed
Grams
P.E.R.
Ration III 6/
3.07
30.0
32.0
3.11
2.89
31.9
2.82
31.5
4.29
34.3
3.75
31,4
3.32
31.8
Experimental period 28 days. Protein of ration 10%.
17.0% protein Betzes barley.
3,/ 13;3% protein Betzes barley.
4/ A.N.R.C. reference casein.
2}
2.87
2.72
2.54
2.51
3.49
3.34
2.92
Corrected
P.E.R.
—■——
----
————
————
”68 APPENDIX TABLE II.
Sex
Rat
No.
Initial
Weight
Grams
RAT EXPERIMENT II. U
Average
Final
Total Daily
Weight
Gain
Gain
Grams
Grams Grams
INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE DATA.
Protein
Con­
Corrected
P.E.R.
sumed
P.E.R.
Grams
F
51
M
52
M
53
M
54
F
55
Average
43
41
39
59
58
46.2
139
173
91
185
135
144.6
Lot I.
96
132
61
126
77
98.4
Ration I 2/
50.9
3.43
57.4
4.71
2.18
35.7
4.50
56.6
2.75
45.5
3.51
49.5
F
61
M
62
F
63
M
64
M
65
Average
44
47
36
55
54
47.2
142
157
109
117
139
132.8
Lot 2.
98
HO
73
62
85
85.6
Ration H
3.50
3.93
2.61
2.21
3.04
3.06
M
71
M
72
F
73
F
74
M
75
Average
42
39
41
56
56
46.8
Lot 3. Ration
• 85
127
88
127
72
113
72
128
160
104
84.2
131.0
F
81
M
82
M
83
M
84
F
85
Average
45
41
38
52
54
46
Lot 4.
135
172
120
141
146
143.0
Ration
90
131
82
89
92
96.8
1.89
2.30
1.71
2.23
1.69
1.99
■——■
————
—
“———
—— —
1.67
1.80
1.34
1.19
1.42
1.49
2.10
2.27
1.69
1.50
1.79
1.89
y
58.8
61.1
54.5
52.3
59.7
57.4
II + 0.44% D-L Methionine
55.5
1.53
3.04
1.55
56.9
3.14
57.0
1.26 .
2.57
1.32
54.5
2.57
1.66
62.7
3.71
3.01
57.4
1.47
1.93
1.95
1.59
1.66
2.09
1.85
II + 0.52% L-Ivsine
55.9
3.21
60.4
4.68
56.2
2.93
3.18
53.4
3.29
62.7
3.46
57.7
2.03
2.73
1.84
2.10
1.85
2.12
HCl
1.61
2.17
1.46
1.67
1.47
1.68
-69APPENDIX TABLE II.
Sex
Rat
No.
M
91
M
92
F
93
M
94
F
95
Average
Initial
Weight
Grams
Lot 5.
46
48
33
62
51
48.0
(CONTINUED)
Final
Weight
Grams
Total
Gain
Grams
Ration i
II
173
172
115
182
125
153.4
Average
Daily
Gain
Grams
Protein
' Con­
sumed
Grams
+ 0.52% L-Ivsine
4.54
127
124
4.43
82
2.93
120
4.29
74
2.64
105.4 3.76
I/ Experimental period 28 days.
2/ A.N.R.C. reference casein.
3./ 17.0% protein barley.
P.E.R.
Corrected
P.E.R.
HCl and 44% D-L Methionine
2.61
61.5
2.07
60.8
2.04
2.57
58.8
1.39
1.75
1.91
62.9
2.41
1.47
1.85
50.4
1.79
2.26
58.9
Protein of ration 15.9%.
-70APPENDIX TABLE III.
Sex
Rat
No.
Initial
Weight
Grams
RAT EXPERIMENT III. -1 INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE DATA,
Average
Protein
Final
Total Daily
ConCorrected
Gain
Weight
Gain
stimed
P.E.R.
P.E.R..
Grams
Grams Grams
Grams
Lot I.
Ill
97
131
102
119
141
116.8
Rat ion i y
3.96
50.9
50.6
3.46
4.68
53.7
3.64
62.3
4.25
57.7
62.1
5.04
56.2
4.17
F
I
F
2
M
3
M
4.
F
5
H
6
Average
42
63
68
54
52
70
58.2
F
7
M
8
F
9
F
10
M
11
M
12
Average
Lot 2.
47
68
64
52
49
65
57.5
II
Ration :
154
202
171
186
148
156
169.5 '
+ 0.4%
107
134
107
134
99
91
112.0
L-Ivsine HCl and 0.3% D-L Methionine 2/
1.90
3.82
56.4
2.28
66.4
2.02
2.42
4.79
60.5
2.12
3.82
1.77
62.1
4.79
2.16
2.59
2.00
3.54
59.3
1.67
3.25
57.8
1.88
1.57
2.22
4.00
60.4
1.85
F
13
M
14
F
15
M
16
M
17
F
18
Average
Lot 3.
45
67
63
55
51
73
59.0
Ration II
147
195
163
162
153
203
170.5
+ 0.4%
102
128
100
107
102
130
111.5
L-Ivsine HCl and 0.4% D-L Methionine
53.6
1.90
2.28
3.64
1.92
2.30
66.8
4.57
57.8
1.73
2.08
3.57
62.1
1.72
2.06
3.82
2.21
55.3
3.64
1.84
69.8
1.86
2.23
4.64
60.9
2.20
3.98
1.83
M
19
F
20
F
21
F
22
M
23
M
24
Average
Lot 4.
48
64
45
57
51
70
55.8
Ration II
200
178
159
197
139
159
172.0
+ 0.4%
152
114
114
140
88
89
116.1
L-Iysine HCl and 0.5% D-L Methionine
66.2
2.30
2.76
5.43
2.18
1.82
62.7
4.07
58.6
1.95
2.34
4.07
2.44
5.00
69.0
2.03
2.05
51.4
1.71
3.14
1.72
62.4
1.43
3.18
1.87
2.24
4.15
61.7
153
160
199
156
17.1
211
175.0
2.18
1.92
2.44
1.64
2.06
2.27
2.09
— — — —
— — — —
w—
— —
— — — —
-71APPENDlX TABLE III.
Sex
Rat
No.
M
25
F
26
F
27
28*
F
M
29
M
30
Average
Initial
Weight
Grams
Lot 5.
44
67
66
49
73
59.8
(CONTINUED)
Final
Weight
Grams
Total
Gain
Grams
Average
Daily
Gain
Grams
Ration II + 0.4%
176
132
111
178
173
107
Protein
Con­
sumed
Grams
P;E.R.
Corrected
P.E.R.
L-Ivsine HCl and 0.6% D-L Methionine
61.9
2.56
4.71
2.13
3.96
62.6
2.12
1.77
1.80
'3.82
59.4
2.16
147
160
166.8
98
87
107.0
3.50
3.11
3.82
54.2
51.4 .
57.9
.1.81
1.69
1.84
2.17
2.03
2.21
F
31
M
32
F
33
M
34
F . 35
M
36
Average
Lot 6.
45
71
64
49
57
72
59.7
Ration II
151
214
177
155
186
173
176.0
+ 0.6%
106
143
113
106
129
101
116.3
L-Iysine HCl and 0.3% D-L Methionine
1.95
54.4
2.34
3.79
5.11
72.0
1:99
2.39
1.82
62.1
2.18
4.04
51.2
2.48
3.79
2.07
2.50
61.9
2.08
4.61
1.51
3.61
67.0
1.81
1.90
2.28
4.16
61.4
M
37
F
38
F
39
F
40
M
41
M
42
Average
Lot 7.
51
58
50
57
50
69
55.8
Ration II
196
148
148
190
141
162
164.3
+ 0.6%
145
90
98
133
91
93
108.3
L-Ivsine HGl and 0.4% D-L Methionine
2.39
2.87
5.18
60.7
2.11
51.2
1.76
3.21
3.50
2.09
56.4
1.74
2.14
2.57
62.1
4.75
60.0
1.52
1.82
3.25
1.96
1.63
56.9
3.33
1.86
2.23
3.87
57.9
F
43
M
44
F
45
M
46
M
47
F
48
Average
Lot 8.
49
72
45
54
52
74
57.7
Ration II
149
220
153 .
165
145
196
171.3
+ 0.6%
100
148
108
111
93
122
113.7
L-Ivsine HCl and 0.5% D-L Methionine
2.16
1.80
55.6
3.57
2.06
71.9
2.47
5.29
1.95
2.34
55,5
3.86
1.62
1.94
3.96
68.4
2.05
54.5
1.71
3.32
2.22
1.85
4.36
65.9
2.20
1.83
61,9
4.06
-72APPENDIX TABLE III,
Sex
Rat
No.
M
49
F
50
F
51
M
52
M
53
F
54
Average
I/
2/
3/
*
Initial
Weight
Grams
Lot 9.
. 48
56
48
48
50
75
54.1
(CONTINUED)
Final
Weight
Grams
Total
Gain
Grams
Average
Daily
Gain ,
Grams
Ration II + 0.6%
168
120
140
' 84
156
108
102
150
150
100
192
117
159.3
105.1
Protein
Con­
sumed
Grams
P.E.R.
L-Ivsine HCl and 0.6% D-L Methionine
2.32
4.29
62.1
1.93
2.02
3.00
49.9
1.68
56.2
1.92
2.30
3.86
1.68
2.02
3.64
60.7
1.69
3.57
59.3
2.03
1.85
2.22
4.18
63.7
2.15
1.79
3.76
58.7
Experimental period 28 days. Protein of ration 15.9%.
A.N.R.C. reference casein.
17.0 percent protein barley.
Rat removed from experiment due to sickness.
<
Corrected
P.E.R.
-73APPENDIX TABLE IV. SWINE EXPERIMENT I. INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE DATA —
____________________GROWING PHASE._____________________________________
Feed
Average
Average
Initial
Final
Daily
Feed
Effici
Sex Pig No.
Weight
Days
Weight
Gain
Gain
Consumption
encv
Lot I.
M
1-3-9
M
1-1-6
F
1-5-1
F
2-4-7
F
2-8-3
F
3-3-1
M
3-1-8
M
3-2-5
Average
86
65
73
70
69
75
72
52
--
148
119
125
130
130
120
130
HO
Lot 2.
M
1-9-3
M
1-1-10
F
1-1-1
F
2-4-6
2-3-2
F
F
3-1-1
M
3-2-4
3-1-9
M
Average
79
72
79
69
70
74
69
65
--
M
1-5-6
1-6-6
M
F
1-1-4
F
2-7-7
F . 2-5-2
F
3-3-7
■3-6-3
M
3-lrlO
M
Average
75
66
88
71
66
75
67
66
62
54
52
60
61
45
58
58
56.3
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
Basal
2.21
1.93
1.86
2.14
2.18
1.61
2.07
2.07
2.01
152.5
2.71
Ration 188 -- Basal. + 0. 1% L-Ivsine
135
138
131
112
121
108 .
131
119
-—-
Lot 3.
Ration 187' —
56
66
52
43
51
34
62
54
52.3
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
2.00
2.36
1.86
1.54
1.82
1.21
2.21
1.93
1.87
141.8
2.71
Ration 189 -- Basal + 0. 2% L-Ivsine l/
138
123
150
123
123
145
127
125
”-—
63
57
62
52
57
70
60
59
60.0
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
2.25
2.04
2.21
1.86
2.04
2.50
2.14
2.11
2.14
161.1
2.69
-IkAPPENDIX TABLE IV.
Sex
Pie No.
(CONTINUED)
Initial
Weight
Lot 4.
M
1-3-5
M
1-14-4
F
1-3-1
F
2-3-5
F
2-2-3
F
3-3-2
M
3-7-5
M
3-1-5
Average
76
. 71
80
72
72
81
71
52
--
Final
Weight
60
70
78
74
63
74
79
54
139
137
137
127
122
142
131
106
115
125
136
132
109
123
140
116
”•-
Lot 6.
M
1-1-7
1-14-10
M
F
1-1-3
F
2-1-4
F
2-2-4
F
3-7-1
M
3-2-7
M
3-7-3
Average
73
65
76
69
67
76
66
64
--
Feed
Effici
ency
Ration 190 -- Basal + 0.3% L- lysine I/
Lot 5.
M
1-6-5
M 1x 1-8-7
F
1-5-2
F
2-1-3
F
2-5-3
F
3-7-2
M
3-7-4
M
3-2-6
Average
Gain
Average
Average
Daily
Feed
Days
Gain Consumption
63
66
57
55
50
61
60
54
58.3
2.25
2.36
2.04
1.96
1.79
2.18
2.14
1.93
2.08
-
149.4
2.56
144.8
2.61
Ration 191 -- Basal
55
55
58
58
46
49
61
62
55.5
Ration 192 —
133
123
117
121
111
115
129
HO
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
60
58
41
52
44
39
63
46
50.4
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
1.96
1.96
2.07
2.07
1.64
1.75
2.30
2.21
1.98
Basal + 0.1% L-Ivsine — /
28
28
28
28
28
2828
28
28
2.14
2.07
1.46
1.86
1.57
1.39
2.25
1.64
1.80
131.3
2.61
-75APPENDIX TABLE IV,
Sex
Pie No.
(CONTINUED)
Initial
Weieht
Final
Weieht
Lot 7.
M
1-2-6
M
1-12-3
F
1-3-4
F
2-2-2
F
2-8-1
F
3-1-2
M
3-6-6
M
3-2-9
Average
90
71
84
82
67
67
63
64
M
1-1-8
M
1-3-6
F
1-6-1
F
2-3-3
F
2-4-4
F
3-3-6
M
3-6r7
M
3-1-7
Average
I/
2/
Ration 193 —
165
131
139
128
131
122
118
116
Lot 8.
76
74
78
80
68
81
65
59
From L-Iysine HGI.
From lyamine
132
127
128
138
116
139
122
115
Gain
Average
Average
Daily
Feed
Davs
Gain Consumption
75
60
55
46
64
55
55
54
58.0
Feed
Effici­
ency
Basal + 0,2% L-Ivsine — /
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
2.68
2.14
1.96
1.64
2.29
1.96
1.96
1.93
2.07
148.1
2.56
Ration 194 -- Basal + 0. 3% L-Ivsine
56
53
50
58
48
58
57
56
54.5
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
2.00
1.89
1.79
2.07
1.71
2.07
2.04
2.00
1.95
144.1
2.64
-76APPENDIX TABLE V s SWINE EXPERIMENT I. INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE DATA
_______________FATTENING PHASE.___________ ____ ___
Average
Average
Feed
Daily
Initial
Final
Feed
EfficiWeight
Weight
Sex Pig No.
Gain
Davs
Gain Consumption
encv
Lot I.
M
1-3-9
M
1-1-6
F
1-5-1
F
2-4-7
F
2-8-3
F
3-3-1
M
3-1-8
M
3-2-5
Average
148
119
125
130
130
120
130
HO
‘*ec■
212
200
202
213
202
201
200
202
———
135
138
131
112
121
108
131
119
208
212
208
200
204
184
214
213
Lot 3.
M
1-5-6
M
1-6-6
F
1-1-4
F
2-7-7
F
2-5-2
F
3-3-7
M
3-6-3
M
3-1-10
Average
138
123
150
123
123
145
127
125
64
81
77
83
72
81
70
92
77.5
28
35
35
42
35
35
28
42
35,0
Basal
2.29
2.31
2.20
1.98
2.06
2.31
2.50
2.19
2.22
276.88
3.53
Ration 198 -- Basal 0.1% L-Ivsine IV
Lot 2.
M
1-9-3
M
1-1-10
F
1-1-1
F
2-4-6
F
2-3-2
F
3-1-1
M
3-2-4
M
3-1-9
Average
Ration 197 —
73
74
77
88
83
76
83
94
81.0
Ration 199 —
200
208
202
209 •
207
220
214
206
62
85
52
86
84
75
87
81
76.5
35
28
42
56
42
56
35
42
42.0
2.09
2.64
1.83
1.57
1.98
1.36
2.37
2.24
1.93
300.38
3.71
Basal + 0.2% L-Ivsine I/
28
42
21
42
35
28
35
35
33.3
2.21
2.02
2.48
2.05
2.40
2.68
2.49
2.31
2.30
266.88
3.49
-11APPENDIX TABLE V.
Sex
Pis No.
(CONTINUED)
Initial
Weisht
.Final
Weisht
Lot 4.
M
1-3-5
M
1-14-4
F
1-3-1
F
2-3-5
F
2-2-3
F
3-3-2
3-7-5
M
M
3-1-5
Average
139
137
137
127
122
142
131
106
"""""
.
115
125
136
132
109
123
140
116
*-~
202
206
201
209
208
217
214
212
- w —”
213
208
208
207
179
202
214
201
Lot 6.
M
1-1-7
M
1-14-10
F
1-1-3
F
2-1-4
F
2-2-4
F
3-7-1
M
3-2-7
M
3-7-3
Average
133
123
117
121
111
115
129
HO
•
Feed
Effici
ency
Ration 200 -- Basal + 0.3% L-Ivsine I/
Lot 5.
M
1-6-5
M
1-8-7
F
1-5-2
F
2-1-3
F
2-5-3
F
3-7-2
M
3-7-4
M
3-2-6
Average
Gain
Average
Average
Daily
Feed
Gain Consumption
Days
203
211
206
206
207
214
220
212
63
69
64
82
86
75
83
106
78.5
28
28
28
35
42.
35
35
42
34. I
2.25
2.46
2.29
2.34
2.05
2.14
2.37
2.52
2.31
Ration 201 —
98
83
72
75
70
79
74
85
79.5
Ration 202 —
70
88
89
85
96
99
91
102
90.0
49
35
35
35
49
35
28
35
37.6
268.00
3.41
302.75
3:81
Basal
2.00
2.37
2.06
2.14
1.43
2.26
2.64
2.43
2.11
Basal + 0 . 1 % L-Ivsine ZJ
28
35
49
42
49
49
35
42
41.1
2.50
2.51
1.82
2.02
1.96
2.02
2.60
2.43
2.19
329.13
3.66
-78APPENDIX TABLE V.
Sex
Pie No.
(CONTINUED).
Initial
Weight
Final
Weight
Lot 7.
M
1-2-6
M
1-12-3
F
1-3-4
F
2-2-2
F
2-8-1
F
3-1-2
M
3-6-6
M
3-2-9
Average
165
131
139
128
131
122
118
116
M
1-1-8
M
1-3-6
F
1-6-1
F
2-3-3
F
2-4-4
F
3-3-6
M
3-6-7
M
3-1-7
Average
132
127
128
138
116
139
122 ,
115
1_/ From L-Iysihe HCl.
2/ ,From lyamihe.
Ration 203 —
216
211
202
204
200
203
203
202
Lot 8.
Gain
Average
Average
Daily
Feed
Davs
Gain Consumption
51
80
63
76
69
81
85
86
73.9
Ration 204 —
212
205
213
210
201
205
209
200
80
78
85
72
85
66
87
85
79.8
Feed
Effici­
ency
Basal + 0 . 2 % L-Ivsine — ^
21
35
35
42
35
42
42
42
36. 8
2.43
2.29
1.80
1.81
1.97
1.93
2.02
2.05
2.01
300.00
4.06
Basal + 0 . 3 % L-Ivsine 2/
35
35
42
28
42
28
42
35
35. 9
2.29
2.23
2.02
2.57
2.02
2.36
2.07
2.43
2.22
285.25
3.58
-79APPENDIX TABLE VI. SWINE EXPERIMENT I. INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE DATA -____________________ S U M M A R Y . __________________________,
Average
Average
Feed
Final
Initial
Daily
Feed
Effici­
Sex Pit No.
Weight
Weight
Gain
Davs
Gain Consumption
ency
Lot I.
M
1-3-9
M
1-1-6
F
1-5-1
F
2-4-7
F
2-8-3
F
3-3-1
M
■3-1-8
M
3-2-5
Average .
86
65
73
70
69
75
72
52
212
200
202
213
202
201
200
202
Lot 2.
M
1-9-3
M
1-1-10
F
1-1-1
F
2-4-6
F
2-3-2
F
3-1-1
M
3-2-4
M
3-1-9
Average
79
72
79
69
70
74
69
65
-~
M
1-5-6
M
1-6-6
F
1-1-4
F
2-7-7
F
2-5-2
F
3-3-7
M
3-6-3
M
3-1-10
Average
75
66
88
71
66
75
67
66
--
126
135
129
143
133
126
128
150
133.8
56
63
63
70
63
63
56
70
63.0
2.25
2.14
2.05
2.07
2.11
2.00
2.29
2.14
2.12
429.38
3.19
Ration -- Basal + 0.1% L-•Ivsine — /
208
212
208
200
204
184
214
213
Lot 3.
Ration -- Basal
129
140
129
131
134
HO
145
148
133.2
63
56
70
84
70
84
63
70
70
2.05
2.50
1.84
:1.56
1.91 .
1.31
2.30
2.11
1.90
442.13
3.32
Ration -- Basal + 0.2% L--Ivsine I/
200
208
202
209
207
220
214
206
—-—
125
142
114
138
141
145
147
140
136.5
56
70
49
70
63
56
63
63
61.3
2.23
2.03
2.33
1.97
2.24
2.59
2.33
2.22
2.23
428.00
3.14
-80 APPENDIX TABLE VI,
Sex
Pie No.
(CONTINUED)
Initial
Weieht
Final
Weieht
Lot 4.
M
1-3-5
M
1-14-4
F
1-3-1
F
2-3-5
F
2-2-3
F ■ 3-3-2
M
3-7-5
M
3-1-5
Average
76
71
80
72
72
81
71
52
-"
60
70
78
74
63
74
79
54
202
206
201
209
208
217
214
212
---
213
208
208
207
179
202
214
201
w—-
Lot 6.
M
1-1-7
M
1-14-10
F
1-1-3
F
2-1-4
F
2-2-4
F
3-7-1
M
3-2-7
M
3-7-3
.Average
73
65
76
69
67
76
66
64
Feed
Effici­
ency
Ration -- Basal + 0.3% L-Ivsine — ^
Lot 5.
M
1-6-5
M
1-8-7
F
1-5-2
F
2-1-3
F
2-5-3
3-7-2
F
M
3-7-4
M
3-2-6
Average
Gain
Average
Average
Daily
Feed
Days
Gain Consumption
126
135
121
137
136
136
143
160
136.7
56
56
56
63
70
63
63
70
62. I
Ration —
153
138
130
133
116
128
135
147
135.0
77
63
63
63
77
63
56
63
65.6
2.25
2.41
2.16
2.17
1.94
2.16
2.27
2.29
2.20
417.38
3.05
447.50
3.31
Basal
1.99
2.19
2.06
2.11
1.51
2.03
2.41
2.33
2.06
Ration -- Basal + 0.1% L -lysine 2J
203
211
206
206
207
214
220
212
130
146
130
137
140
138
154
148
140.3
56
63
77'
70
77
77
63
70
69.1
2.32
2.32
1.69
1.96
1.82
1.79
2.44
2.11
2.03
460.38
3.28
-81APPENDIX TABLE VI.
Sex
Pig No.
(CONTINUED)
Initial
Weight
Final
Weight
Lot 7.
M
1-2-6
M
1-12-3
F
1-3-4
F
2-2-2
F
2-8-1
F
3-1-2
M
3-6-6
M
3-2-9
Average
90
71
84
82
67
67
63
64
1-1-8
-M
M . 1-3-6
F
1-6-1
F
2-3-3
F
2-4-4
F
3-3-6
M
3-6-7
M
3-1-7
Average
I/
2/
76
74
78
80
68
81
65
59
From L-Iysine HCl.
From lyamine.
Gain
Feed
Effici­
ency
Ration -- Basal + 0.2% L-Ivsine I/
216
211
202
204
200
203
203
202
Lot 8.
Average
Average
Daily
Feed
Days " Gain Consumption
126
140
118
122
133
136
140
138
132.0
Ration —
212
205
213
210
201
205
209
200
49
63
63
70
63
70
70
70
64.8
2.57
2.22
1.87
1.74
2.11
1.94
2.00
1.97
2.03
448.13
3.40
Basal + 0.3% L-Iysine — ^
136
131
135
130
133
124
144
141
134.2
63
2.16
63
2.08
1.93
70
56
2.32
70
.1.90
56
2.21
70
2.06
2.24
63
63.9 2.10
429.38
3.20
1.0416
1.0348
1.0418
1.0461
1.0325
1.0481
1,0408
139.5
137.0
148.5
139.0
138.0
128.5
138.4
Lot 2.
1-9-3 188
1-1-10 192
2-4-6 198
2-3-2 193
3-1-1 182
3-2-4 194
Average
1.8
1.6
1.1
1.7
1.2
1.8
1.5
1.0427
1.0347
1.0542
1.0395
1.0552
1.0327
1.0432
137.0
142.0
145.0
145.0
132.5
144.5
141.0
1.5
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.7
1.4
1.6
31.5
28.8
30.3
31.1
30.8
31.4
30.6
Loin Area
6.00
5.75
6.50
7,00
6.00
8.25
6.58
!
22.25
19.50
21.25
20.50
19.20
20.50
20.53
Lean Trim
14.75
12.75
14:50
15.00
13.80
14.50
14.22
Fat
Butt
1.6
1.9
1.5
1.3
1.6
1.3
1.5
Loin
198
186
2-4-7 197
2-8-3 188
3-3-1 185
3-1-8 181
Average
1-3-9
1-1-6
Picnic
Shoulder
Lot I.
'I-
Belly
INDIVIDUAL CARCASS DATA.:
Length of
Carcass
Backfat
Measurement
Chilled
Total W t .
SWINE EXPERIMENT Ik
Specific
Gravity
Ay. Backfat
Probe Live
Shrunk
Weight
Pig No.
APPENDIX TABLE VII.
Ration -- Basal
24.00
21:50
26.00
26.00
22.20
23.75
23.91
16.00
18.50
17.75
15.00
17.10
15.00
16.56
38.50 9.00
39.75 8.75
40.00 10.50
35.20 9.00
40.50 7.50
27.00 7.75
36.83 8.75
2.29
2.55
2.81
2.59
2.60
2.87
2.62
Ration -- Basal + 0.1% L-Ivsine I/
1.5
1.7
1.2
1.7
1.2
1.9
1.5
31.1
29.2
30.0
30.2
30.5
29.0
30,0
23.25 17.25
23.00 "18.00
30.00 14.00
24.25 " 17.75
27.00 13.00
22.00 19.25
24.92 16.54
14.00
13.50
16.25
15.25
15.50
13.75,
14.71
21.75
18.75
26.25
21.10
24.75.
19.25
21.98
i
6.00
6.00
8.25
7.50
7.00
6.50
6.88
35.00 9.50
43.50 8.75
28.25 10.00
40.00 9.25
24.50 9.25
45.00 8.50
36.04 9.21
2.86
2.36
3.20
2.67
3.83
2.51
2.91
OO
N5
I
1-5-6
1-6-6
2-7-7
2-5-2
190
195
198
190
3-3-7 196
3-6-3 191
Average
1-3-5 185
1-14-4 190
2-3-5 189
2-2-3 196
3-3-2 200
3-7-5 196
Average
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.7
1.9
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.3
1.4
1.8
1.6
1.0425
1.0399
1.0472
1.0389
1.0367
1.0393
1.0407
1.0434
1.0359
1.0389
1.0498
1.0427
1.0328
1.0406
Ration -- Basal + 0.2% L -lysine I/
139.0
148.5
144.5
142.0
146.5
142.0
143.8
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.5
1.9
1.7
1.7
Lot 4.
Ration -- Basal + 0.3% L--lysine I/
136.0
139,5
143.5:
145.5
147.0
148.0
143.2
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.4
1.5
1.8
1.6
31.8
30.0
30.0
29.6
30.3
30.7
24.50
26.25
26.50
24.50
23.25
24.50
30.4
24.92
30.0
31.0
29.6
30,4
32.1
29.7
30.5
22.75
22.25
23.50
29.00
25.00
23.50
24.33
16.25
16.75
16.75
17.00
18.75
18.00
17.25
16.50
18.25
17.00
17.10
18.10
19,50
17.74
21.00
22.50
22.00
21.00
22.50
21.00
21.67
14.00
16.75
15.75
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.75
13.25
14.25
14.25
15.60
15.10
14.50
14.49
19.75
21.75
22.00
23.60
23.25
21.25
21.93
t
Loin Area
Lean Trim
Fat
Loin
Lot 3.
Butt
",
Picnic
Shoulder
Belly
Ham
Length of
Carcass
Backfat
Measurement
Chilled
Total W t .
(CONTINUED)
Specific
Gravity
A v . Backfat
Probe Live
Shrunk
Weight
;
Pig No.
APPENDIX TABLE VII0
5.50
7.00
7.25
6.25
7.25
6.00
6.54
37.75 8.50
36.50 10.75
34.75 10.00
40.75 8.50
41.25 8.00
37.75 9.50
38.13 9.21
2.32
3.04
3.38
2.83
2.84
2.96
3.06
6.75
6.75
7.00
7,60
7.25
6.75
7.02
37.25 8.75
38.50 8.00
30.50 8.75
31.10 10.10
37.50 8.00
43.00 8.00
36.31 8.60
2.73
3.13
3.58
3.05
2.68
2.98
2.69
I
00
U3
1
APPENDIX TABLE VII.
(CONTINUED)
« O)
O
S
00
•H
Pu
O iJ
C 43
3 60
43 <U
PO 0)
43
»O
>M
<5 P<
C
O
•H'
U-I U
O >
o m
Pu n
CQ CD
4J
*d S
CD
T-4 rrl •
1-4 <0
•H -U . .
43 O
O H
.e
*J 0)
cd k
CM 3
4<S co
o cd
Cd OJ
ttS
O
CO
43 »
4J Cd
600
C k
cu cd
>J U
Lot 5.
1-6-5 197
1-8-7 192
2-1-3 192
2-5-3 165
3-7-2 187
3-7-4 197
Average
1-1-7 184
1-14-10 193
2-1-4 191
2-2-4 195
3-7-1 200
3-2-7 200
Average
1.4
1.7
1.6
1.2
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.8
1.6
1.1
1.3
1,4
1.7
1.5
1.0444
1.0355
1.0458
1.0519
1.0379
1.0396
1.0425
1.0367
1.0407
1.0523
1.0488
1.0446
1.0305
1.0416
S
CO
SC
r-4
?-4
<u
PQ
-H
M
H
M
CU
O tO
•Wi-4
C 3
O O
-H 43
PU CQ
C
•H ■
O
IJ
15.50
14.10
14.50
12.50
13.75
13.75
14.02
24.25
19.40
20.25
20.25
20.00
19.00
20.53
■U
cd
Cu
ti
Cd
CU
■j
7.25
6.60
7.25
6.25
6.25
6.00
6.60
34.70
43.25
35.25
23.75
39.25
37.50
35.62
9.75
8.10
9.25
9.25
8,25
7.50
8.68
2.72
2.77
2.75
2.58
3.13
2.62
2.76
6.50
7.30
7.25
7.50
7:50
6.20
7.04
39.25 9.25
39.00 8.50
30.75 9.50
32.80 10.25
37.50 9.00
45.00 9.80
37.38 9.38
2.66
3.17
3.02
3.60
3.53
2.83
3.14
Ration -- Basal
145.0
144.5
138.0
118.0
138.5
133.5
136.3
1.5
1.8
1.8
1.4
1.6
1.8
1.6
Lot 6.
Ration -- Basal + 0.1% L -lysine 2/
136.0x
143.0
138.5
144.0
150.0
147.5
143.2
1.6 29.5
1.7 31.0
1.5 31.5
1.5 31.7
1.7 :30:9
1.9 29.8
1.6 30.7
31.8
29.5
30.8
31.2
29.6
29.7
30.4
4J
■u
3
W
<u
<
C
-H
O
•J
26.50
23.75
24.60
23.25
23.00
24.00
24.18
21.50
23.75
25.75
26.50
26.50
23.40
24.57
17.00
18.00
15.25
13.00
17.25
17.25
16.29
15.75
18.00
15.50
16.25
17.00
19.90
17.07
13.00
14.10
15.50
16.00
15.50
14.50
14.77
20.25
21.20
22.25
24.00
25.25
19.80
22.13
I
00-
1-2-6 205
1-12-3 195
2-2-2 190
2-8-1 183
3-1-2 187
3-6-6 188
Average
1-1-8 194
1-3-6 189
2-3-3 194
2-4-4 188
3-3-6 184
3-1-7 182
Average
1.7
1.4
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.5
1.4
2.0
1:5
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.0379
1.0421
1.0580
1.0510
1.0527
1.0457
1.0474
1.0252
1.0343
1.0367
1.0526
1.0440
1.0476
1.0400
Lot 7.
Ration -- Basal + 0.27. L--lysine I/
140.2
142.0
137.5
134.0
136.0
137.0
137.8
1.8
1.6
1.0
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
Lot 8.
Ration —
147.0
138.0
143.2
141.5
134.0
131.5
139.1
2.0
1.4
1.9
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.7
30.6
31.8
31.0
30.7
31.8
30.4
31.1
28.5
30.6
30.1
29.9
31.8
29.3
30.0
22.85 17.20
25.50 16.75
28.00 14.75
25.00 15.50
26.00 15.50
23.40 16.90
25.13 „16.10
14.80
13.75
16.25
15.00
14.75
13.00
14.59
20.30 7.50 40.25 8.75
22.50 6.50 37.00 9.75
24.00 8.00 24.25 9.50
21.00 7.00 .29.50 8.50
23.50 7.50 27.50 10.00
20.60 6,50 35.40 9.25
21.98 -J7U7 32.32 9.29
Loin Area
Lean Trim
Fat
Butt
Loin
Picnic
Shoulder
I
Belly
Length of
Carcass
Backfat
Measurement
Chilled
Total W t .
(CONTINUED)
Specific
Gravity
A v . Backfat
Probe Live
Shrunk
Weight
Pig No.
APPENDIX TABLE VII.
2.85
2.47
3.36
3.07
3.48
2.74
3.00
Basal + 0.3% L--ivsine 2/
22.60
22.75
23.25
26.26
22.75
25.00
23.77
20.00
17.25
18.00
16.50
15.50
14.75
17.00
13.40 18.00
13.50 21.50
15.50 , 20.75
14.75 22.50
13.50 21.75
15.00 21.00
14.28 20.92
5.80
6.75
7.25
7.25
7.50
7,25
6.97
50.30
37.25
40.25
33.50
31.50
29.25
37.01
7.00
8.75
8.75
9.25
9.00
9.25
8.67
2.38
2.37
2.78
3.02
3.08
3.27
2.82
Average Males
1.0387
1.7
23.55
17.42
14.10
20.71
6.56
38.65
8.81
2.70
Average Females
1.0458
1.5
25.34
16.22
14.85
22.20
7.14
29.55
9.14
3.08
I/
2/
From L-Iysine HCl
From lyamine.
I
OO
Ui
I
“86APPENDIX TABLE VIII,
________________
Sex
Pie No.
SWINE EXPERIMENT II. INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE DATA
GROWING PHASE.
_______ ________ _____________ .
Average
Average
Feed
Initial
Final
Daily
Feed
EfficiWeieht
Weieht
Gain
Days
Gain Consumption
encv
Lot I.
M
10-9
M
10-12
F
6-1
F
7-6
F
12-2
Average
62
58
76
67
55
63.6
129
118
143
114
125
125.8
Lot 2.
M
10-5
M
10-10
F
3-7
F
7-2
F
11-5
Average
58
44
74
65
50
58.2
M
12-7
M
11-10
F
5-3
F
7-5
F
11-6
Average
61
45
72
65
54
59.4
M
10-6
M
11.-7
F
7-1
F
7-4
F
10-2
Average
66
50
73
69
57.
63.0
66
58
77
65
62
65.6
Ration 213 —
132
105
141
128
118
124.8
Lot 4.
67
60
67
47
70
62.2
35
35
35
35
35
35
1.91
1.71
1.91
1.34
2.00
1.78
212.0
Ration 212 -- Basal + 0.25% Lyamine
124
102
151
130
112
123.8
Lot 3.
Ration 211 -- Basal
71
60
69
63
64
65.4
Ration 214 —
134
115
141
134
125
129.8
68
65
68
65
68
66.8
35
35
35
35
35
35
1.89
1.66
2.20
1.86
1.77
1.87
198.0
Basal + 0.50% Lvamine I/
35
35
35
35
35
35
2.03
1.71
1.97
1.80
1.83
1.87
214.0
Basal + 0.75% Lvamine I/
35
35
35
35
35
35
1.94
1.86
1.94
1.86
1.94
1.91
204.8
3.07
-87(CONTINUED)
CO
I
APPENPIX TABLE VIII.
Pie No.
Initial
Weight
Final
Weight
Lot 5.
M
12-5
M
10-7
F
7-7
F
7-8
F
10-1
.Average
57
57
70
70
61
63.0
120
116
137
131
113
123.4
Lot 6,
M
7-12
M
12-3
F
2-2
F
7-3
F
12-1
Average
63
51
73
69
61
63.4
M
12-4
M
10-4
F
5-4
F
6-5
F
11-3
Average
63
47
76
59
50
59.0
M
10-8
M
12-6
F
,4-1
F
2-1
F
10-3
Average
JL/
2/
58
54
74
70
62
63.6
63
59
67
61
52
60.4
35
35
35
35
35
35
Basal
1.80
1.69
1.91
1.74
1.49
1.73
2J
202.0
3.34
65
64
63
54
68
62.8
35
35
35
35
35
35
1.86
1.83
1.80
1.54
1.94
1.79
210.8
3.36
Ration 221 -- Basal + 0.50% Lyamine U
136
112
141
114
103
121.2
Lot 8.
Ration 2191 —
Feed
Efficiencv
Ration 220 -- Basal + 0. 25% Lyamine 2/
128
115
136
123
129
126.2
Lot 7.
Gain
Average
Average
Daily
Feed
Days
Gain Consumption
73
65
65
55
53
62.2
35
35
35
35
35
35
2.09
1.86
1.86
1.57
1.51
1.78
200.0
3.22
Ration 222 -- Basal. + 0.75% Lyamine sJ
118
99
145
131
134
125.4
60
45
71
61
72
61.8
13.3 percent protein Betzes barley
17.0 percent protein Betzes barley
35
35
35
35
35
35
1.71
1.29
2.03
1.74
2.06
1.77
200.8
3.25
-88-
APPENDIX TABLE IX. SWINE EXPERIMENT II. INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE DATA
____________ FINISHING PHASE._____________ ■
__________ : ■
Average
Average
Feed
Initial
Final
Daily
' Feed
Effici­
Sex Pie No.
Weieht
Weieht
Gain
Days
Gain Consumption
ency
Lot I
M
10-9
M
10-12
F
6-1
F
7-6
F
12-2
Average
129
118
143
114
125
125.8
204
205
203
197
208
203.4
Lot 2»
10-5
M
M
10-10
F
3-7
F
7-2
F
11-5
Average
124
102
151
130
112
123.8
M
12-7
M
11-10
F
5-3
>F
7-5
F
11-6
Average
132
105
141
128
118
124.8
M
10-6
M
11-7
F
7-1
F
7-4
F
10-2
Average
134
115
141
134
.125
129.8
78
105
61
72
91
81.4
Ration 217 —
222
190
203
217
217
209.8
Lot'4.
75
87
60
83
83
77.6
Ration 216 —
202
207
212
202
203
205,2
Lot 3.
Ration 215 —
90
85
62
89
99
85.0
28
35
21
35
35
30.8
Basal — /
2.68
2.49
n2.86
2.37
2;37
2.52
276.0
3.56
Basal + 0.25% Lyamine %J
35
42
21
28
42
33.6
2.23
2.50
2.90
2.57
2.17
2.42
282.2
3.47
Basal + 0.50% Lyamine I/
28
35
21
35
35
30.8
3.21
2.43
2.95
2.54
2.83
2.76
292.0
3.44
Ration 218 -- Basal + 0.75% Lvamine I/
206
194
217
205
201
204.6
72
79
76
71
76
74.8
28
35
28
28
35
30.8
2.57 .
2.26
2.71
2.53
2.17
2.43
261.0
3.49
-89APPENDIX TABLE IX.
Sex
Pig No.
(CONTINUED)
Initial
Weight
Final
Weight
Gain
Average
Average
Daily
Feed
Days
Gain Consumption
Feed
Effici
encv
:
Lot 5.
M
12-5
M
10-7
F
7-7
F
7-8
F
10-1
Average
120 ,
116
137
131
113
123.4
206
208
205
212
200
206.2
Lot 6.
7-12
M
M
12-3
F
2-2
F
7-3
F
12-1
Average
128
115
136
123
129
126.2
M
12-4
M
10-4
F
5-4
F
6-5
F
11-3
Average
136
112
141
114
103
121.2
M
10-8
M
12-6
F
4-1
F
2-1
F
10-3
Average
I/
I)
118
99
145
131
134
125.4
35
42
28
35
42
36.4
2.46
2.19
2.42
2.31
2.07,
2.27
303.6
3.67
81
88
76
63
75
76.6
35
35
35
35
28
33.6
2.31
2.51
2.17
1.80
2.67
2.28
287.6
3.75
Ration 225 -- Basal + 0.50% Lvamine
215
215
200
206
204
208.0
Lot 8.
86
92
68
81
87
82.8
Basal — /
Ration 224 -- Basal + 0. 25% Lvamine
209
203
212
186
204 .
202.8
Lot 7'.
Ration 223 —
79
103
59
92
101
86.8
28
42
28
49
49
39.2
2.82
2.45
2.10
1.87
2.06
2.21
307.0
3.54
Ration 226 -- Basal + 0.75% Lyamine 2/
210
181
207
204
206
201.6
92
82
62
73
72
76.2
13.3 percent protein Betzes barley.
17.0 percent protein Betzes barley.
42
42
28
35
28
35
2.19
1.95
2.21
2.08
2.57
2.18
264.0
3.46
-90APPENDIX TABLE X, SWINE EXPERIMENT II. INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE DATA -___________________ SUMMARY. ______ ______________
____
Sex
Initial
Pie No. Weieht
Final
Weieht
Average Average
Daily Feed ConGain sunmtion
Gain _Davs
Feed
Effi­
ciency
-
]Lot I . Ration -- Basal I/
M
.10-9
M
10-12
F
6-1
F
7-6
F
12-2
Average
62
58
76
67
55
63.6
204
205
203
197
208
203.4
Lot 2.
M
10-5
M
10-10
F
3-7
F
7-2
F
11-5
Average.
58
44
74
65
50
58.2
202
207
212
202
203
205.2
Lot 3»
M
12-7
M
11-10
F
5-3
F
7-5
F
11-6
Average
61
45
72
65
54
59.4
222
190
203
217
217
209.8
Lot 4.
M
10-6
M
11-7
F
7-1
F
7-4
F
10-2
Average
66
50
73
69
57
63.0
206
194
217
205
201
204.6
142
147
127
130
153
139.8
,63
70
56
70
70
66.0
Ration —
144
163
138
137
153
147.0
2.25
2.10
2.27
1.86
2.19
2.12
488.0
Backfat
Probe
3.49
1.46
1.80
1.50
1.73
1.56
1.61
Basal + 0.25% Lvamine I/
70
77
56
63
77
68.6
2.06
2.33
2.45
2.16
1.99
2.14
480.2
3.27
1.77
1.93
1.35
1.53
1.71
1.66
Ration -- Basal 4- 0.50% Lvamine I/
161
145
131
152
163
150.4
63
70
56
70
70
65.8
Ration —
140
144
144'
136
144
2.56
2.07
2.34
2.17
2.33
2.29
.
506.0
3.36
1.43
1.67
1.50
1.73
1.77
1.62
Basal + 0.75% Lyamine I/
63
70
63
63
70
i4i a i 65.8
2.22
2.06
2.29
2.16
2.06
2,15
465.8
3.29
Ii 53
1.80
1.57
1.60
1.57
1.61
"91
APPENDIX TABLE X»
Sex
(CONTINUED)
Initial
Pie No. Weieht
Final
Weieht
Average Average
Daily Feed ConDays
Gain sumption
Gain
Lot: 5.
M
12-5
M
10-7
F
7-7
F
7-8
F
10-1
Average
57
57
70
70
61
63.0
Lot 6.
M
7-12
M
12-3
F
2-2
F
7-3
F
12-1
Average
63
51
73
69
61
63.4
Ltit 7.
M
12-4.
M
10-4
F
5-4
F
6-5
F
11-3
Average
63 •
47
76
59
50
59.0
Lot 8.
M
10-8
M
12-6
F
4-1
F
2-1
F
10-3
Average
I/
2/
58
54
..74
70
62
63.6
206
208
205
212
200
206.2
Ration -- Basal
149
151
135
142
139
143. 2
70
77
63
70
77
71.4
2.13
1.96
2.14
2.03
1,81
2.01
Feed
Effi­
ciency
Backfat
Probe
U
505.6
3.53
1.63
1.87
1.53
1.77
1.83
1.73
3.57
1.73
1.47
1.73
1.67
1.40
1.60
3.41
1.57
1.87
1.37
1.70
1.60
1.62
Ration -- Basal + 0.25% Lvamine 2/
209
203
212
186
204
202.8
146
152
139
117 '
143
139.4
Ration
210
181
207
204
206
201-.6
2.09
2.17
1.99
1.67
2.27
2.03
498.4
Basal + 0.50% Lvamine 2/
Ration
215
215
200
206
204
207.8
70
70
70
70
63
68.6
152
168
124
147
154
148. 8
cat*
63
77
63
84
84
74.2
2.41
2.18
1.97
1.75
1.83
2.03
507.0
iasal + 0.75% Lvamine 2/
152
127-
133
134
144
138.0
77
77
63
70
63
70.0
13o3 percent protein Betges barley.
17,0 percent protein Betzes barley.
1.97
1.65
2.11
1.91
2.29
1.97
1,80
464.8
3.37
1.37
1.43
1.67
1.63
1.58
-92APPENDIX TABLE XI.
Variation
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF P.E.R.
df
SS
Ration (R)
Sex (S)
RXS
Error
Total
7
I
7
32
47
2.58
0.01
0.22
0.81
3.62
RAT TRIAL I.
ms
F
.37
.01
.03
.02
18.50**
.50
1.50
---
— — —
"
** Highly significant (P<0„01).
APPENDIX TABLE XII. .COMPARISON OF RATIONS AS SHOWN BY DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE
RANGE' TEST. RAT TRIAL I.
V
I
TI
VI
VIII
IV
III
Ration No.
VII
1.37
Mean
I/
1.41
1.50
1.53 I/
1.89
1.90
1.91
1.92
Rations that are underlined are not significantly different from each
other but are significantly different from the rations that are not
underlined on the same line.
APPENDIX TABLE XIII. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF P.E.R. RAT TRIAL II.
Variation__________________ df_____
. ss__________ms_________ F
Ration (R)
Sex (S)
RXS
Error
Total
* Significant (P-<0.05).
3
I
3
12
19
0.54
0.53
0.37
0.86
2.30
.18
.57
.12
.07
— to
2.50
7.63*
1.71
-93APPENDIX TABLE XIV.
Variation
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF P.E.R.
df
SS
Lysine (L)
Methionine (M)
Sex (S)
LXS
L X M
M X S
L X M X S
Error
Total
APPENDIX TABLE XV.
I
3
I
I
3
3
3
31
47
0.001
0.035
0.060
0.029
0.034
0.072
0.035
2.463
2,699
SWINE TRIAL I. GROWING PHASE.
OF AVERAGE DAILY GAIN.
SS
df
Source
Levels
Source X Levels
Sex
Sex X Source
Levels X Sex
Sex X Levels X Source
Error
Total
I
3
3
I
I
3
3
48
63
0.085
0.630
0.029
0.780
0.007
0.387
0.072
2.337
4.329
RAT TRIAL III.
ms
F
0.001
0.012
0.060
0.029
0.011
0.024
0.012
0.079
0.01
0.15
0.76
0.37
0.14
0.30
0.15
————
— — ——
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
ms
0.085
0.210
0.009
0.780
0.007
0.129
0.024
0,049
F
1.74
4.31**
0.20
16.03**
0.15
2.65
0.50
- - --
** Highly significant (P<C0.01).
APPENDIX TABLE XVI.
Levels of Lysine
Mean of A.D.G.
COMPARISON OF AVERAGE DAILY GAIN AS SHOWN BY DUNCAN! S
MULTIPLE RANGE TEST.
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.2
1.83
2.00
2.01
2.11
I/**
Levels of Lysine
Mean of A.D.G.
0.1
0.0
0.3
1.83
2.00
2.01
0.2
2.11 I/*
* Significant (P=C0.05) .
** Highly significant (P<C0.01)„
\J Rations that are underlined are not significantly different from each
other but are significantly different from the rations that are not
underlined on the same line.
-94APPENDIX TABLE XVII,
__________
Variation
SWINE TRIAL I, FATTENING PHASE. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF AVERAGE DAILY GAIN,______ df
SS
ms
F
Source
Levels
Sex
Source X Levels
Sex X Source
Levels X Sex
Sex X Levels X Source
Error
Total
I
3
I
3
I
.3
3
48
63
** Highly significant (p <
APPENDIX TABLE XVIII.
Variation
Source
Level
Sex
Source X.Levels
Sex X Source
Level X Sex
Sex X Levels X Source
Error
Total
0.0
0.035
0.193
1.166
0.532
0.038
0.687
0.264
2.014
4.928
0.035
0.064
1.166
0.177
0.038
0.229
0.087
0.049
0.84
1.53
27.80**
4.23
0.91
5.46**
2.08
.
i)f
SUMMARY SWINE TRIAL I.
AVERAGE DAILY GAIN.
■ SS
df
I
3
I
3
I
3
3
42
63
0.052
0.246
0.955
0.186
0.016
0.483
0.167
1.553
3.660
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF
ms
0.052
0.082
0.955
0.062
0.016
0.161
0.056
0.032
F
1.60
2.53
29.49** .
1.91
0.50
4.97**
1.72
— — — *=
** Highly significant (P<0.01)„
APPENDIX TABLE XIX. .SWINE EXPERIMENT I. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF BACKFAT
;
PROBES. CLIVE).
F
ms
df
SS
Variation
Source
Levels
Sex
Source X Levels
Sex X Source
Levels X Sex
Sex X Levels X Source
Error
Total
I
3
I
3
I
3
3
32
47
0.137
0.043
0.919
0.103
0.006
0.131
0.028
1.193
2.561
0.137
0.014
0.919
0.034
0.006
0.044
0.009
0.037
3.66
0.38
2.46
0.92
0.16
1.19
0.24
■ — — - ■
----
I
-95APPENDIX TABLE XX.
Variation
SWINE EXPERIMENT I.
GRAVITY.
df
Source
Levels
Sex
Source X Levels
Sex X Source
Levels X Sex
Sex X Levels X Source
Error
Total
I
3
I
3
I
3
3
32
47
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF SPECIFIC
______________
SS
F
ms
0.041
0.103
0.611
0.124
0.077
0.177
0.062
1.242
2.438
0.041
0.034
0.611
0.041
0.077
0.059
0.021
0.039
1.05
0.87
15.74**
1.05
2.00
1.51
0.54
■™w"
** Highly significant (P<0.01).
APPENDIX TABLE XXI. SWINE EXPERIMENT I. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF BACKFAT
____________________ MEASUREMENT. (CARCASS).
_____________________
F
df
SS
ms
Variation
I
3
I
3
I
3
3
Source
Levels
Sex
Source X Levels
Sex X Source
Levels X Sex
Sex X Levels X Source
Error
Total
32
47
0.074
0.182
0.262
0.007
0.092
0.209
1.165
1.993
0.025
0.182
0.087
0.009
0.031
0.070
0.036
0.69
5.01*
2.40
0.25
0.86
1.94
----
* Significant (P<0.05).
APPENDIX TABLE XXII.
Variation
Source
Levels
Se x '
Source X Levels
Sex X Source
Levels X Sex
Sex X Levels X Source
Error
Total
SWINE EXPERIMENT I. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF CARCASS
LENGTH.
ms
.F
df
. SS
I
3
I
3
I
3
3 •
32
47
0.040
0.155
0.176
0.319
0.128
0.282
0.043
2.637
3.780
0.040
0.052
0.176
0.106
0.128
0.094
0.014
0.082
0.49
0.63
2.14
1.29
1.56
1.15
0.17
APPEroiX TABLE X X I I I 0
SWINE EXPERIMENT
Variation
WEIGHTS,
df
Source
Levels
Sex
Source X Levels
Sex X Source
Levels X Sex
Sex X Levels X Source
Error
Total
:I
I0
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF H A M
.
SS
I
3
I
3
I
3
3
0.001
0.088
0.364
0.015
0.021
0.214'
32
47
0.840
1.687
0.142
ms
F
0.001
0.029
0.364
0.005
0.021
0.071
0.047
0.026
0.04
1.12
13.84**
0.19
0.81
2.71
1.81
** Highly significant (P<^0«01)„
SWINE EXPERIMENT I. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF BACON
WEIGHTS.
F
df
ms
88
APPENDIX TABLE XXIV0
Variation
** Highly significant
APPENDIX TABLE XXV0
Variation
I
3
I
3
I
3
3
32
47
0.020
0.058
' 0.172
0.046
0.016
0.066
0.082
0.713
1.172
0.020
0,019
0.172
0.015
0.016
0.022
0.027
0.022
0.91
0.86
7.70**
0.68
0.73
1.00 .
1.23
X
O
O
M
Source
Levels
Sex
Source X Levels
Sex X Source
Levels X 'Sex
Sex X Levels X Source
Error
Total
SWINE EXPERIMENT I0 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF SHOULDER
WEIGHTS..
F
df
SS
ms
Source.
Levels
Sex
Source X Levels
Sex X Source
Levels X Sex
Sex X Levels X Source
Error.
Total '
I
3
I
3
I
3
3
32
47
** Highly significant (P-<.0„01)o
0.020
0.293
0.682
0.015
0.020
0.098
0.682
0.005
0,26
1.29
8.96**
0.65
— = =
0.659
0.385
2.437
4.490
0.219
0,128
0.076
2.88
1.68
-97APPENDIX TABLE XXVI. SWINE EXPERIMENT I. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF LOIN
______________________WEIGHTS._________________________________________
Variation
df
SS
ms
F
Source
Level
Sex
Source X Levels
Sex X Source
Levels X Sex
Sex X Levels X Source
Error
Total
I
3
I
3
'I
3
3
32
47
0.002
0.162
0.268
0,032
0.002
0,054
0.268
0.011
0.09
2.43
12.06**
0.50.
0.292
0.020
0.709
1.486
0.097
0.007
0.022
4.39**
0.32
- -- -
** Highly significant. (P-CO.Ol) .
APPENDIX TABLE XXVII.
Variation
Source
Levels
Sex
Source X Levels
Sex X Source
Levels X Se x '
Sex X Levels X Source
Error.
Total
SWINE EXPERIMENT I. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF BUTT
WEIGHTS.
F
df
SS
,ms
I
3
I
3
I
3
3
32
47
0.043
0.118
0.405
0.083
0.003
0.220
0.035
1.170
2.078
0.043
0.039
0.405
0.028
0.003
0.073
0.012
0.037
1.16
1.05
11.08**
0.76
0.08
2.01
0.32
----
** Highly significant (P<0.01) .
APFENDIX TABLE XXVIII.
Variation
Source
Levels
Sex
Source X Levels
Sex X Source
Levels X Sex
Sex X Levels X Source
Error
Total
SWINE EXPERIMENT I.
TRIM WEIGHTS.
SS
df
I
3
I
3
I
3
3
32
47
** Highly significant■(P<^0.01).
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF FAT
0.018
0.017
0.288
0.094
0.046
0.090
0.138
0.889
1.581
ms
0.018
0.006
0.288
0.031
0.046
0.030
0.046
0.028
F
0.64
0.21
10.35**
1.11
1.64
1.07
1.64
-98APPENDIX TABLE XXIX. SWINE EXPERIMENT I. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF LEAN
______________________ TRIM WEIGHTS.
______
________
Variation
df
F
ms
SS
Source
Levels
Sex
Source X Levels
Sex X Source
Levels X Sex
Sex X Levels X Source
Error
Total
I
3
I
3
I
3
3
32
47
0.005
0.434
0.132
0.009
0.006
0.184
0.048
2.325
3.144
0.005
0.145
0.132
0.003
0.006
0.061
0.062
0.073
0.07
1.99
1.81
0.04
0.08
0.83
0.85
™ — ——
— — — —
APPENDIX TABLE XXX,
SWINE EXPERIMENT I. -ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF RIBEYE
AREA.'
F
Variation
df
I SS
ms
!
0.80
Source
I
0.074
0.074
2.62
Levels
0.719
0.240
3
I
19.23**
Sex
1.763
1.763
0.91
Source X Levels
3
0.254
0.084
— — -—
I
Sex X Source
0.352
Levels X Sex
3
0.117
1.27
0.059
0.64
Sex X Levels X Source
3
0.177
0.092
Error
32
2.935
“
6.275
Total
47
** Highly significant (PC0.01).
APPENDIX TABLE XXXI.
Variation
Protein (P)
Lysine (L)
Sex (S)
PXS
PXL
LXS
P X L X S
Error
Total
GROWING PHASE SWINE EXPERIMENT II,
VARIANCE OF AVERAGE DAILY GAINS.
df
SS
ms
I
3
I
I
3
3
3
24
39
0.082
0.051
0.002
0.002
0.011
0.199
0.211
0.906
1.464
0.082
0.017
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.067
0.070
0.038
ANALYSIS OF
F
2.15
0.44
0.05
0.05
0.07
1.76
1.84
-99APPENDIX TABLE XXXII. FATTENING PHASE SWINE EXPERIMENT II. ANALYSIS OF
__________ ____________ VARIANCE OF AVERAGE DAILY GAINS.
___________
df
Variation
/ .
F
SS
ms
Protein (P)
Lysine (L)
Sex (S)
PXS
PXL
LXS
P X L X S
Error
Total
I
3
I
I
3
3
3
24
39
0.939
0.216
0.041
0.097
0.180
0.282
0.204
1.833
3.792
0.939
0.072
0.041
0.097
0.060
0.094
0.068
0.076
12.36**
0.95
0.54
1.28
0.79
1.24
0.89
——“—
I
** Highly significant (P<0.01)
APPENDIX TABLE XXXIII.
Variation
Protein (P)
Lysine (L)
Sex (S)
PXS
PXL
LXS
P X L X S
Error
Total
SUMMARY SWINE EXPERIMENT II. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
OF AVERAGE DAILY GAINS.
F
ms
df
SS
I
3
I
I
3
3
3
24
39
0.322
0.053
0.026
0.014
0.019
0.197
0.153
0.858
1.642
I
0.322
0.018
0.026
0.014
0.006
0.066
0.051
0.036
9.94**
0.50
0.72
0.39
0.02
1.83
1.42.
** Highly significant (P-CO.Ol)
I
!f!.
a,
■V
LITERATURE CITED
Almquist, H. J., E 0 L 0 R 0 Stokstad and E 0 R. Halbrook0 1935, Supplemen­
tary values of the animal protein concentrates in chick rations.
J 0 Nutrition. 10;193„
Almquist, H 0 J 0 1952. Amino acid requirements of chickens and turkeys.
Poultry Science. 31:966.
Americana Encyclopedia, Vol, 3, Americana Corporation. 1961.
• ' V
. .
Americana Encyclopedia, Vol. 19, Americana Corporation. 1961.
Baliga, B 0 P 0, M 0 E 0 Bayliss and C 0 M 0 Lyman. 1959. Determination of free
lysine - amino groups.in cottonseed meals and preliminary studies in
relation to protein quality. Arch. Biochem0 and Biophys. 84:1.
Barnes, R 0 H 0., J 0 E. Moaek, M. J 0 Knights and 6. O 0 Burr. 1945. Measure­
ment of the growth-promoting quality of dietary protein. Cer. Chem.
22:2,73.
Bayne9 A. W 0, K 0 J 0 Carpenter and A 0 A. Woodham. 1961. Progress report on
an assessment of laboratory procedures suggested as indicators of
protein quality in feeding stuffs. J 0 of Sci0 Food and Agric.
12(12):832.
Beeson, W. M 0 1951. Purdue University report to animal nutrition confer­
ence at University of Minnesota. Feedstuffs. 23(10):16.
Bell, J 0 M 0, H 0 H 0 Williams, J. K 0 Loosli and L 0 A 0 Maynard. 1950. The
effect of methionine supplementation of a soybean oil meal purified
ration for growing pigs. J . Nutrition. 40:551.
Bergs C. P 0 1936. The availability of d(-) Lysine for growth.
Nutrition. 12:671.
J0
Block, R 0 J. , K. W. Weiss, H 0 J 0 Almquist, D. B 0 Carroll, W. G. Gordon
and S . Saperstein. 1956. Amino Acid Handbook. Charles Thomas,
Publisher. Springfield, 111.
Bohonos, N., B. L. Hastings and W. H. Peterson. 1942. Pyrodoxine nutri­
tion of lactic acid bacteria. J . Bact. 44:479-485.
Bressani, R. and E. T. Hertz. 1958. Relationship of protein level to
the minimum lysine requirement of the rat„ J. Nutrition. 65:481.
Bressani, R 0, D. L 0 Wilson, M. Behar and N 0 S . Scrimshaw. I960. Supple­
mentation of cereal proteins with amino acids. J. Nutrition.
70:176.
-
101
-
BricksOBil W. L 1, L 1 M 1 Henderson, I 1 Solhjell and C 1 A 1 Elvehjem1 1948.
Antagonism of amino acids in the growth of lactic acid bacteria.
J 1 Biol. Chem. 176:517-528,
Brunegar, M. J 1, J 1 K 1 Loosli, H 1 H 1 Williams and L 1 A 1 Maynard.
Lysine requirements of growing pigs: Fed. Proc1 8:379.
1949.
Brunegar, M 1 J 1, H 1 H. Williams, F 1 G. Ferris, J . K. Loosli and L 1 A 1
Maynard. 1950a. The lysine requirement fon the growth of swine.
J 1 Nutrition, 42:129,
Brunegar, J 1 J 1, H 1 H 1 Williams, J 1 K 1 Loosli and L 1 A 1 Maynard.
Lysine requirements for growing swine. Fed. Proc. 9:353,
1950b.
Cannon, P 1 R 1, C 1 H 1 Steffee, L 1 J 1 Frazier, D 1 A 1 Rowley and R 1 C 1
Stepta1 1947, The influence of time of ingestion of essential
amino acids upon utilization in tissue synthesis. Fed. Proc1 6:390.
Carroll, W 1 E 1 and J 1 L 1 Krider1
Book Co., Inc.
Swine Production.
1956.
McGraw Hill
Carpenter, K 1 J 1, G. M 1 Ellinger, M 1 J 1 Munro and E 1 J 1 Rolfe. 1957.
Fish products as protein supplements to cereals. Brit1 J 1 Nutrition.
11:162.
Carpenter, K 1 J 1 I960. The estimation of the available lysine in animal
protein foods. Biochem. J 1 77:604.
Chapman, D 1 G., R 1 Costillo and J . A 1 Campbell. 1959. Evaluation of
protein in foods. I. A method for the determination of protein
efficiency ratios. Can. J . Biochem. and Physiol. 37:369.
Cole, J. W 1 1951. Slaughtering, chilling and cutting methods for pork
carcass evaluation. Report on Proceedings Fourth Annual Reciprocal
Meat Conference. National Livestock and Meat Board,
DeBey, H 1 J 1, E. E 1 Snell and C 1 A 1 Baumann. 1952. Studies on the
interrelationship between methionine and vitamin B,„ J 1 Nutrition.
46:203.
Dinnuson, W 1 E 1, D 1 Erickson and D 1 W 1 Bolin.
tion for barley rations. J 1 Animal Sci1
Duncan, D 1 B 1 1955.
11(1):42.
1958. Lysine supplementa­
17:1162.
Multiple range and multiple F test.
Biometrics.
Elman, R 1 1939. Time factor in retention of nitrogen after intravenous
injection of a mixture of amino acids. Proc. Soc1 Exptl1 Biol. Med.
40:484.
-102Elvehjem, C. A.
1956.
Amino acid imbalance.
Fed. Proc.
15:965.
Esh, G. C ., T . S . De and U . P. Basu. 1960. Nutritive value of the pro­
teins of Bengal gram of high and low protein content. Brit. J.
Nutrition. 14:425-31.
Fildes, P. and G. P. Gladstone. 1939. Glutamine and the growth of
bacteria. Brit. J. Exptl. Pathol. 20:334-341.
Flodin, N. W„ 1953, Amino afcids and proteins: their place in human
nutrition problems. J . Agr. Food Chem. 1:222.
Foster, G. L. 1945. Some amino acid analysis of hemoglobin and
globulin. J . Biol. Chem. 159:431.
lacto-
Geiger, E. 1947. Experiments with delayed supplementation of incomplete
amino acid mixtures. J . Nutrition. 34:97.
Gillespie, M., A. Neuberger and T. A. Webster. 1945. Further studies
on lysine deficiencies in rats. Biochem. J. 39:203.
Graw, C . R. 1948. Effect of protein level on the lysine requirement of
the chick. J . Nutrition. 36:99-108.
Graw, C . R. and M. Kamei. 1950. Amino acid imbalance and the growth
requirements for lysine and methionine. J . Nutrition. 41:89-101.
Gupta, J . D., A. M. Dakraury, A. E. Harper and C. A, Elvehjem. 1958.
Biological availability of lysine. J » Nutrition. 64:259.
0
Hale, F. and C. M. Lyman. 1961. Lysine supplementation of sorghum grain
cottonseed meal rations for growing fattening pigs. J . Animal Sci.
20:734.
Hanks, L. V., L. M; Henderson and C. A. EIvehjem. 1949. Effect of cystine
and threonine on the growth of rats receiving tryptaphan-deficient
rations, J . Biol. Chem. 80:1027.
Harris, H. A., Neuberger and F. Sanger.
young rats. Biochem. J . 37:508.
1943,
Lysine deficiency in
Hegsted, D. M. and J . Worcester. 1947. A study of the relation between
protein efficiency and gain in weight on diets of constant protein
content. J . Nutrition. 33:685,
Henderson, L. M., 0. J . Koeppe and H. H. Zimmerman, 1953. Niacintryptephan deficiency resulting from amino acid imbalance on casein
diets. J . Biol. Chem. 201:697.
1 '
-103Hoagland, R. and H. H. Snider„ 1927. The value of beef protein as a
supplement to the proteins in certain vegetable products. J. Agric.
Research. 34:297.
Jackson, R. W. and R. J. Block. 1953. . Metabolism of d- and I- methionine.
Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol, and Med, 30:587,
Jansen, G. R,, L. R. Dimaio and N. L. Hause. 1962. Cereal proteins,
amino acid composition and lysine supplementation of Teff. J . Agric.
Food Chem. 10:62-65.
Kade, C . F, Jr, and J. Shepherd. 1948.
methionine on protein utilization.
The inhibitory effect of excess
Fed. Proc. 7:291.
Larson, Wayne F., Robert W, Seerley, and Richard C . Wahlstrom. 1960.
Lysine supplementation of oat rations for pigs. Fifth Annual Swine
Days, S . Dak. Agric, Exp. Sta.
Lascelles, J,, J. J. Cross and D. D. Woods. 1954. The folic acid and
serine nutrition of Leuconostbc mesenteroides. J . Gen. Microbiol,
10:267-284.
Lewis, D. 1962. Fats and amino acids in swine rations. Proceedings
Maryland Nutrition Conference. University of Maryland.
Lyman, Carl M,, K. A. Kuken and Fred Hale. 1956. Essential amino acid
content of farm feeds. J. Agr. and Food Chem. 4:1008.
Maynard, L. A. and J . K. Loosli.
Book C o ., New York.
1956.
Animal Nutrition. McGraw-Hill
McClure, L. E., R, E. Neuman and T. A. McCoy. 1954. Amino acid metabolic
studies. VI. Aspartic acid-lysine interrelations in Streptococcus
faecalis. Arch. Biochem. and Biophys. 53:50-55.
McElroy, L. W., W. Lobay and R. D. Sinclair. 1948. Feeding grains of
different protein content. J . Animal Sci. 7:494.
McElroy, L. W,, W. Lobay and R 0 D. Sinclair. 1949. Feeding grains of
different protein content to growing pigs. Sci. Agr. 29:579-583.
McHenry, Kathleen, R. M. Cormack and H. W. Kosterlitz. 1961. Nutritive
value of proteins determined by liver nitrogen method with rats.
British J. Nutr. 15(2):199.
McLaughlan, J. M., C. J . Rogers, D. G. Chapman and J . A. Campbell. 1959,
Evaluation of protein in foods. Can. J . Biochem. and Physiol.
37:1293.
-104”
McLaughlan, J. M., C . Morrison. 1960. Evaluation of protein quality in
mixed foods.- Can. J. Biochem. and Physiol. 38:1378-1380.
Mendel, L. B. 1923. Nutrition:
University Press.
The chemistry of life.
New Haven. Yale
Mertz, E „ T., D . C . Shelton and W. M. Beeson. 1949. The amino acid re­
quirements of swine. Lysine. J . Animal Sci. 8:524.
Mertz, E. T., W. M. Beeson and H. D. Jackson. 1952. Classification of
essential amino acids for the weanling pig. Arch. Biochem. 38:121.
Miller, R. C., L. W. Aurand and W. R. Flach. 1950.
and low protein corn. Science. 112:57.
Amino acids in high
Mitchell, H. H. 1924a. A method of determining the biological value of
proteins. J . Biol. Chem. 58:873-903.
Mitchell, H. H. 1924b. The biological value of proteins at different
levels of intake. J. Biol. Chem. 58:905-922.
Mitchell, H. H.., T . S . Hamilton and J . R. Beadles. 1952. Relationship
between the protein content of corn and the nutritional value of the
protein. J . Nutrition. 48:82.
Morrison, F. B, 1956. Feeds and Feeding.
Publishing Co. Ithaca, N. Y.
22nd edition.
Morrison
Morrison, A. B. and J . A. Campbell. 1,960. Evaluation of protein in foods.
II, Factors influencing the protein efficiency ratio of foods. J,
Nutrition. 70:172.
Pond, W., J . C, Hillier and R. W. MacVicar. 1953. Amino acid supplemen­
tation to corn and miIo rations for growing pigs. J . Animal Sci.
12:928.
National Research Council, Committee on Animal Nutrition. 1959. Nutrient
Requirements of Domestic Animals. II. Nutrient requirements of
swine. Pub. 648. National Academy of Sciences— National Research
Council, Washington, D . C.
National Research Council, Committee on Animal Nutrition and the National
Committee.on Animal Nutrition. Canada 1959. Joint United States —
Canadian Tables of Feed Composition. Pub. 659. National Academy of
Sciences -- National Research Council, Washington, D. C.
Rama Rao, P. 0., H. W„ Norton and B. C . Johnson. 1961. The amino acid
composition and nutritive value of proteins. J. Nutrition. 38:42.
-105Reisen, W. H . , B„ S. Schweigert and C. A. Elvehjem. 1946. The effect of
the level of casein, cystine and methionine intake on riboflavin
retention and protein utilization by the rat. Arch. Biochem. 10:387
Rogers, C. J., J . M. McLaughlan and D. G. Chapman. 1959. Evaluation of
protein in foods. III. A study of bacteriological methods. Can. J.
Biochem. and Physiol. 37:1351.
Rose, W„ C. 1937. The nutritive significance of the amino acids and
certain related compounds. Science. 86:298.
Rosenberg, H. R. and E. L. Rohdenburg. 1952. The fortification of bread
with lysine. II. The nutritional value of fortified bread. Arch.
Biochem „ 37:461.
Rosenberg, H. R. 1957. Methionine and lysine supplementation of animal
feeds. J. Agr. Food Chem. 5:694.
Sauberlich, H. E. 1952.
Fed. Proc. 11:281.
Seerley, R. W. 1962.
finishing swine.
Studies on amino acid imbalances in the rat.
Supplemental L-Iysine in miIo rations for growing
Fifth Annual Swine Days. S . Dak. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Sirny, R. J., L„ T„ Cheng and C . A. Elvehjem. 1951. An arginine-proline
Interdependence in Leuconostoc mesenteroides P-60. J. Biol. Chem.
190:547-556.
.
Stokes, J. L., M. M. Gunness, I. M. Dwyer and M. C . Coswell. 1945.
Microbiological methods for the determination of amino acids. J.
Biol. Chem. 160:36.
Strong, C . L. 1951. Standard methods of measuring and grading for pork
carcass evaluation. Report on Proceedings Fourth Annual Reciprocal
Meat Conference. National Live Stock and Meat Board.
Sure, B. 1955. Relative nutritive values of proteins in various foods
and supplementary value of amino acids in pearled barley and peanut
flour. J. Agr. Food Chem. 3:789.
Sure B. 1957. Relative nutritive values of proteins in various foods
at increasingly high levels of protein intake. J. Agr. and Food
Chem. 5:463.
Van PuIsum, J, F. and C . P. Berg. 1950. The comparative availabilities
of mixtures of the L and DL modifications of the essential aminoacids for growth in the rat. J. Biol. Chem. 183:279-290.
-106Unpub lished Data. 1961. Montana State College.
barley. R. Davidson and William Tatarka.
Evaluation of protein in
Unpublished Data. 1961. Montana State College. Experimental feeding of
rats on various barley varieties. V. Taylor, A. Nelson and H.
Townsend.
Van Pulsum, J. F. and. C v F. Berg. 1950. The comparative availabilities .
of mixtures of the L arid DL modifications of the essential aminoacids for growth in the rat. J . Biol. Chem. 183:279-290.
Vipperman, P. E., H. R. Thomas, R. F. Kelley, P. P. Graham and C . C .
Brooks. 1961. Effect of dietary lysine level on muscle size and
composition in swine. J . Animal Sci. 20:954.
Yang, S . P., H. E. Clark and Gladys E. Vail. 1961. Effects of varied
levels and a single daily supplement of lysine on the nutritional
improvement of wheat flour protein. J . Nutrition. 2:241.
MONTANASTATEUNIVERSITYLIBRARIES
762 1 101 341
4
N378
D286
cop.2
Davidson, R. M.
Effect of addition of amino
acids to barley rations for
rats and swine
!_/•
________ .
/1/^78
T)Z8G
Q-op- Z
' S u ti'